Mr C Duffield and Mr Q Hussain v Ibco Ltd and Others: 2415215/2020 and Others
JUDGMENT
[1]The response will not be struck out under rules 37(1)(b) or (e), following the claimants’ application of 12 April 2021;[2]Mr Duffield’s claim of direct race discrimination in which he alleged that the first and third respondents refused a requested change in hours (issue 4.2.4 in the issues identified by Employment Judge Buckley following the case management hearing on 23 September 2021) is struck out because it has no reasonable prospect of success;[3]Mr Hussain’s claim of harassment related to disability against the first and second respondent relying upon events which occurred in 2015 (as was clarified at the hearing) (issue 16.1.1 in the issues identified by Employment Judge Buckley following the case management hearing on 23 September 2021) is struck out because it has no reasonable prospect of success (in that the there is no reasonable prospect of the Tribunal having jurisdiction to determine the complaint); Case Nos. 2415215/2020 2415216/2020 2415342/2020 2415343/2020 2[4]The respondents’ application to strike out the claimants other claims under rule 37(1)(a) is refused.REASONS
[1]The claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £500.00 following a preliminary hearing held on 8 and 9 February 2022. The Order was sent to the claimant on 2.The claimant has failed to pay this deposit. The complaints of: direct race discrimination claim that the second respondent called him racially derogatory names in May 2019 (issue4.2.1 ); direct race discrimination claim that the first and third respondents failed to take action in relation to the complaint about being called racially derogatory names (issue4.2.2 ); harassment , related to race, both that the second respondent called him racially derogatory names in May 2019 and that Mr I Ahmed acted in ways alleged in a meeting in May 2019 (issues6.1.1 and6.1.2 ); and victimisation , alleging that the detrimental treatment was the way in which Mr I Ahmed acted in a meeting in May 2019 (issue 7.2.1) are therefore struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.[2]The hearing fixed for 8 to 12 August 2022 will still take place, to determine the claimant’s remaining claims. Employment Judge Holmes Date: 4 April 2022 Ibco Limited[3]Mr B Ahmed HELD AT: Manchester Employment Tribunal ON: 8-12 August 2022, 21, 22 November 2022, 7-9 December 2022 (9 December in absence of parties), 3 and 4 January 2023 (3 January in absence of parties) BEFORE: Employment Judge Cookson Mrs Booth Mrs Clover REPRESENTATION: Claimants: Mr Duffield (Craig Duffield’s father) Respondents: Mr J Gidney (counsel)[1]The following claims of Mr Duffield are upheld against the first respondent :a. That he was unfairly dismissed contrary to s94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”);b. That he was subject to indirect race discrimination contrary to s19 of the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”) and insofar as that claim was submitted outside the statutory time limit, the tribunal finds it is just and equitable to extend timec. That his dismissal amounted to victimisation contrary to s27 of the EqA. Case Nos. 2415215/2020 2415342/2020 2[2]The following claims of Mr Hussain are upheld against the first respondent:a. That he was unfairly dismissed contrary to s94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”);b. That his dismissal amounted to direct disability discrimination contrary to s13 EqA;c. That the respondent failed to make a reasonable adjustment to its requirement for Mr Hussain to work 6 days per week and over 50 hours per week contrary to s20 and 21 of the EqA;d. That the decision to refuse Mr Hussain’s request to change his hours amounted to harassment related to his disability contrary to s26 of the EqA;e. That his dismissal amounted to victimisation contrary to s27 of the EqA;f. That Mr Hussain was subject to other acts of victimisation listed in the Agreed List of Issues at items 14.4.1, 14.4.3 and 14.4.5;g. The tribunal concludes that, in relation to the above acts of discrimination, Mr Hussain was subject to a course of conduct over time which in accordance with s123(3)(a) EaA is treated as done at the end of the period which concluded with his dismissal and accordingly his claims were submitted in time.[3]Mr Duffield’s claim of direct race discrimination under s13 EqA was withdrawn in the course of the hearing and is dismissed.[4]The following claims of Mr Duffield are not upheld and are dismissed: a. His claim that he was subject to unlawful deduction from wages.[5]The following claims of Mr Hussain are not upheld and are dismisseda. That the refusal of sick leave amounted to harassment related to his disability contrary to s26 of the EqA;b. That Mr Hussain was subject to other acts of victimisation listed in the Agreed List of Issues at items 14.4.2 and 14.4.4.c. His claim that he was subject to unlawful deduction from wages.[6]The claims against the second and third respondents are withdrawn and are dismissed.