Mr G Moore v Southern Housing Group: 2301442/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Citation | 2301442/2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 25 April 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Race Discrimination |
Case Number: 2301442/2020
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr. Graham Moore
Respondents: Southern Housing Group
Heard at: London South Hearing Centre
On 02-04/3/22 and in Chambers 31.3.22
Before: Employment Judge McLaren
Members: Ms. H Carter
Ms. C Oldfield
Representation
Claimant: Mx. O Davies, Counsel
Respondent: Mr. Goodwin, Counsel
JUDGMENT
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that: -
The respondent did not contravene s 13 of the Equality Act 1996. The
claims of direct discrimination do not succeed.
REASONS
Background
1. We heard evidence from the claimant on his own account The
witnesses for the respondent were Adrian Lewis, Operations Manager
and the claimant’s line manager during his employment, Carl Dewey,
Southern Maintenance Services Director, and Luke Chandler, Director of
Development Delivery.
2. We were initially provided with a bundle of 280 pages. The claimant
objected to the inclusion of the document at page 277 which was said to
Case Number: 2301442/2020
be included by the respondent at the last minute and to be of no
relevance to the hearing. Having heard the parties’ submissions on this
document, we concluded that it was potentially relevant to the issues in
the case, that the was little prejudice to the claimant in allowing the
document in, and there would be greater prejudice to the respondent if it
was not included. Its inclusion was within the overriding objective.
3. During the course of the hearing, it became evident that the notes of
the interview held with the claimant were available. We were provided
with a copy of the handwritten notes of 10 October 2019 and an email
sent by Mr Lewis on the 2 December to a number of recipients, including
the claimant. These were added to the bundle. On the third day of the
hearing, we were again provided with additional documentation. These
were emails relating to the appeal process. These were also included in
the hearing bundle.
4. In reaching our decision we took account of all the pages in the bundle
to which we were referred, the witness evidence, the skeleton argument
produced on behalf of the claimant, the respondent’s opening note and
the parties’ helpful written submissions and expanded oral submissions.
Issues
5. The issues in this matter were agreed as follows
Direct discrimination on the grounds of race
The Claimant is an English national.
1.1 Has the Respondent treated the Claimant less favourably than it treated
or would treat others? The Claimant alleges that the following acts or
omissions of the Respondent constitute discrimination on the grounds of
race:
1.1.1 Failing to have a box labelled “English” for employees to
select on its recruitment monitoring form;
1.1.2 Adrian Lewis told the Claimant that a complaint had been
made against him;
1.1.3 Adrian Lewis only reacted in a negative way after he had look
at the English Democrats’ website;
1.1.4 Adrian Lewis lied about knowing that the Claimant was
standing in the General Election;
1.1.5 Evidence was ignored at the probation review meeting;
1.1.6 The probation review meeting outcome was premeditated;
1.2 If there has been less favourable treatment, was the reason for such
treatment the protected characteristic of race?
To continue reading
Request your trial