Employment Judge BartlettMr. D. Brown (instructed by counsel) for respondentDate 15 June 2023
JUDGMENT
The complaints of victimization (s27 Equality Act 2010) relating to the claimant raising concerns about race discrimination in relation to the situation surrounding Jamal Abdi’s dismissal are struck out because such claims have no reasonable prospects of success.
REASONS
[1]Following a discussion at the preliminary hearing on 14 October 2022, I concluded that the claimant’s claims relating to victimisation surrounding her raising concerns about the dismissal of Jamal Abdi had no reasonable prospects of success this is because the claimant was unable to identify a protected.[2]I repeatedly asked the claimant to identify where she had raised concerns about race, colour, discrimination or prejudicial treatment. As she could only refer to what was implied by what she said, I concluded that this was insufficient to amount to a protected act. _____________________________ Employment Judge Bartlett 17/10/2022[1]The claimant’s claims for direct associative race discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 section 13 and for constructive unfair dismissal are struck out due to no reasonable prospect of success (under Rule 37(1) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013). It was agreed that there was no claim for unfair dismissal by reason of redundancy.[2]The Tribunal finds that the claimant’s claims for Direct Age Discrimination and for Victimisation (Equality Act 2010 respectively sections 13 and 27) have little reasonable prospect of success. Under Rule 39(1) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013, the Tribunal will make an order requiring the claimant (“the paying party”) to pay a deposit as a condition of continuing to advance those claims.[3]Although reasonable enquiries were made of the claimant at the Preliminary Hearing, sufficient information was not available to enable a decision about the amount of the deposit. The claimant will be directed to provide documentary evidence as to means and both parties will be directed to make submissions on the appropriate amount after which an amount for the deposit on each claim will be determined.[4]The claimant has little prospect of success in establishing the Direct Age Discrimination claim because on the evidence before the Tribunal she will have difficulty in showing on the balance of probabilities that the HR Director gave her the incorrect information deliberately, that this was worse treatment Case Number: 3322639/2021 2 than an actual or hypothetical comparator, that this was because of her age or age group and that this amounted to a detriment, given that her decision to accept voluntary redundancy was based on the correct information and that she declined the opportunity to withdraw from voluntary redundancy.[5]The claimant has little prospect of success in establishing the claim for Victimisation because she will have difficulty in showing on the balance of probabilities that the emails of 14 June and 24 June 2021 were a protected act and specifically that she was targeted by the HR Director and “enticed” to accept voluntary redundancy by incorrect information because of her age or age group.[6]The Tribunal therefore finds that it is proportionate to make a deposit order.