Elizabeth Hodgetts, instructed by the Government Legal Department, represented the Ministry of Defence in its successful defence of race discrimination and victimisation claims arising out of a sequence of events over 18 months.
The claimant was issued with informal warnings for conduct and performance. He raised a grievance about the relevant manager alleging bullying and race discrimination, and made a report to an officer charged with Equality & Diversity responsibilities (both accepted to constitute protected acts), but separately also disparaged the manager in various informal conversations with colleagues and at least one former colleague online. The manager, who was unaware of the protected acts, also raised a grievance in relation to the claimant’s disparagement of her.
The claimant’s grievance was ultimately dismissed, and the manager’s upheld, the decision-maker holding that the claimant had not been subjected to bullying but had himself bullied the manager in disparaging her. Meanwhile, the claimant’s conduct under other managers had resulted in a disciplinary investigation which concluded that there was a case to answer.
Following a 2 week hearing in the London Central Employment Tribunal, the Tribunal dismissed all the claims. Holding that the vast majority of the complaints were out of time, and that it was not prepared to extend time not least having regard to their lack of merit, the Tribunal made findings of fact that the claimant had indeed conducted himself poorly and that the manager had acted leniently in only imposing an informal warning for conduct; further, that the grievance decision-maker was justified in finding that the claimant had subsequently bullied the manager, and that there was indeed a disciplinary case to answer in relation to the claimant’s subsequent poor conduct. The comparators were not in materially the same circumstances: they had not engaged in poor conduct or performance; and neither the claimant’s race nor any protected act was any part of the reason for what had happened.
The Tribunal rejected the claimant’s evidence on all disputes of fact, observing, variously, that his evidence was “unconvincing” and “a significant escalation”; and his allegations “materially misrepresented” matters, and were “misleading” or “groundless”.
News coverage:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/23/civil-servant-sued-mod-racism-working-uber-tribunal
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2045809/civil-servant-sues-Mod-racism
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14643463/Civil-servant-sues-racism-disciplined-vacuum-cleaner-supposed.html
