Mr L Cyrus v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust: 2302301/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 2022 |
| Date | 25 November 2022 |
| Published date | 23 December 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Race Discrimination |
| Citation | 2302301/2021 |
Case Number: 2302301/2021
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr L Cyrus
Respondent: Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Heard at: London South On: 15,16,17,18 November 2022
Before: Employment Judge Sekhon
Ms J Jerram
Mr J Turley
Representation
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Ms Patterson, Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous decision and judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1. The claim for direct race discrimination under Section 13 Equality Act 2010 is
not well founded and is dismissed.
2. The claims for harassment (race) under Section 26 Equality Act 2010 are not
well founded and are dismissed.
3. The claim for victimisation (race) under Section 27 Equality Act 2010 is not well
founded and is dismissed.
REASONS
Summary
1. This is the reserved judgment with reasons following the hearing from 15-18
November 2022.
2. Mr Cyrus (“the Claimant”) was employed as a bank worker as a property project
manager (Band 8a) by the Respondent, Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS
Trust (“Respondent Trust”), on 6 April 2021 until he was dismissed on 4 May
2021. His last day of employment was 4 May 2021, but he was paid until the end
of May 2021. The Respondent is an NHS Trust providing health and social care
services for people in Surrey and Northeast Hampshire and drugs and alcohol
services in Surrey and Brighton.
Case Number: 2302301/2021
2
3. The key personnel at the Respondent Trust and referred to in this judgment are
listed below: -
(a) Ms Angela Borst, HR Business Partner.
(b) Ms Susie Gray, Director of Property Operations.
(c) Mr David Mander (Witness), Associate Director of Property Operations.
(d) Mr Yogesh Ramloll (Witness), Head of Facilities Management.
(e) Mr Raj Rutah, Clinical Lead of Engagement and Transformation (Chief
Medical Officer’s Office)
4. Mr Cyrus notified ACAS under the early conciliation procedure on 24 May 2021.
The ACAS certificate was issued on 25 June 2021.
5. By a claim form received on 30 June 2021, Mr Cyrus seeks compensation for
direct race discrimination, harassment related to race and victimisation.
6. The Respondent Trust resists the claim by ET3 dated 9 August 2020, denying
that Mr Cyrus was discriminated or harassed on the grounds of race or that he
was victimised.
Claims and Issues
7. The issues were clarified at the preliminary case management hearing on 11
August 2022 before Employment Judge Andrews who prepared a List of agreed
Issues. A final copy of the agreed List of Issues is dated 8 September 2022 and
at pages 48, 49 of the bundle.
8. Employment Judge Andrews dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal as Mr Cyrus
did not have sufficient continuous service to bring such a claim.
9. Employment Judge Andrews laid down directions for both parties to comply with
in preparation for the final hearing.
10. Mr Cyrus subsequently made applications to the Tribunal for disclosure of his
calendar and emails whilst working for the Respondent Trust and for witness
orders for the HR director, Ms Angela Borst, and Mr Mander’s manager, Mr Raj
Rutah, Clinical Lead of Engagement and Transformation (Chief Medical Officer’s
Office).
11. On 2 September 2022, Employment Judge Andrews suggested that Mr Cyrus
review whether the disclosure of documents was relevant or necessary after
disclosure had taken place between the parties. The Tribunal note that Mr Cyrus’
diary entries are disclosed at page 432 of the bundle.
Case Number: 2302301/2021
3
12. On 31 October 2022, Acting Regional Employment Judge Balogun, refused Mr
Cyrus’ application for witness orders and the reconsideration thereafter on 4
November 2022.
Procedure and Hearing
13. The case was listed for a 4-day public final hearing to take place in person. This
was a pleaded claim for direct race discrimination (Section 13 Equality Act 2010),
harassment (race) (Section 26 Equality Act 2010), victimisation (race) (Section
27 Equality Act 2010).
14. Mr Cyrus appeared in person and was without legal representation. The
Respondent Trust was represented by Ms Patterson, Counsel.
15. The Tribunal had an indexed bundle from the Respondent Trust running to 629
pages together with a cast list, chronology, and essential reading list. These were
not agreed by Mr Cyrus prior to these being sent to the Tribunal.
16. Mr Cyrus had produced a witness statement dated 10 November 2022 and the
Respondent Trust produced statements from Mr Mander dated 10 November
2022 and Mr Ramloll dated 9 November 2022 and called them to give evidence.
17. The Tribunal spent the first 1.5 hours reading the documents from the essential
reading list and the witness statements.
Amendment to the List of Issues
18. At the outset of the hearing, both parties confirmed that the agreed List of Issues
did not need to be amended / altered and the Tribunal confirmed that these were
the only issues that they would hear evidence on and determine at the final
hearing.
19. However, during cross examination Mr Cyrus clarified in his evidence that: -
(a) Allegation 2.1.1 was incorrect and should read,
“On 22 April 2021, the Claimant met with Mr Mander, the day before Mr
Mander went on annual leave and at this meeting Mr Mander said, “I have
two black managers in the same room as me that I manage.”.
(b) Allegation 2.1.2 did not take place as there was only one incident when Mr
Mander referred to having two black men in the room.
(c) Allegation 2.1.6 was incorrect as the bullying and harassment that Mr Ramloll
carried out was not because of the Claimant’s race.
20. The Tribunal amended the List of Issues to remove allegations 2.1.2 and 2.1.6
and amended allegation 2.1.1 as set out above. Both parties agreed these
amendments. The Tribunal agreed that Ms Patterson could put questions to the
Respondent Trust witnesses on the new allegation 2.1.1.
To continue reading
Request your trial