Mr A E Madu v Loughborough College: 2600593/2019
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 2022 |
| Date | 25 June 2022 |
| Published date | 07 July 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Race Discrimination |
| Citation | 2600593/2019 |
Case Number: 2600593/2019
Page 1 of 27
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Mr A E Madu
Respondent:
Loughborough College
Heard at:
Leicester Hearing Centre, 5a New Walk, Leicester, LE1 6TE
Hybrid hearing
On:
1, 2, 3 November 2021, 25 and 26 May 2022
Before:
Employment Judge Adkinson sitting with
Ms B Tidd
Mr C Bhogaita
Appearances
For the claimant:
Mr L Ogilvy, consultant
For the respondent:
Ms H Barney, Counsel 1 November 2021 and 25 and 26
May 2022
Ms B Bird, solicitor, 2 and 3 November 2021
JUDGMENT
After hearing from the claimant and respondent, and after hearing the evidence of
each party, and for the reasons set out below, the Tribunal unanimously concludes
that
1. The claimant’s claim that the respondent directly discriminated against him
because of race by failing to respond adequately to his request for feedback
on 13 November 2018, 25 November 2018 and 18 January 2019 is
dismissed;
2. The claimants claims that the respondent directly discriminated against him
because of race by
2.1. deciding not to move his interview time as he requested on 4
November 2018, and
2.2. failing to appoint him to the post of lecturer in health and social
care on 12 November 2018
were presented out of time. It is not just and equitable to extend time in
relation to either or both claims. The Tribunal therefore lacks jurisdiction to
consider them, and each claim is therefore dismissed.
Case Number: 2600593/2019
Page 2 of 27
REASONS
1. Following Early Conciliation between 19 February 2019 and 19 March
2019, the Claimant presented the claims before us on 27 March 2019. The
Claimant, Mr Madu, alleges 3 instances of direct race discrimination
regarding his application for the job as a Lecturer in Health and Social Care
at the respondent, a college of further education called Loughborough
College.
2. The college denies that they have discriminated against Mr Madu either as
alleged or at all. They also allege that any claim that occurred before 20
November 2018 is out of time.
Hearing
3. At the hearing before us, Mr Ogilvy, consultant, represented Mr Madu and
Ms H Barney, Counsel, represented the college except for the second and
third day when the solicitor for the college, Ms B Bird, represented them.
We are grateful to all of them for the help that they have given to the
Tribunal.
4. The hearing has proceeded as a hybrid hearing. Everyone except the lay
members attended the Tribunal personally. The lay members attended by
Cloud Video Platform. The reasons are as follows: When the hearing began
on 1 November 2021, restrictions on the number of people who could be
present in the Tribunal room meant it was not possible to accommodate
everyone. The fact that the Tribunal benches in the hearing centre were not
big enough to accommodate the then requirement for social distancing of 2
metres also presented an obstacle. Therefore as was a standard practice
in this region and as was done in many cases, the lay members attended
remotely. When the hearing resumed in May 2022, those restrictions had
ended. However the Tribunal concluded it was fair to all parties to continue
the same format so that all witnesses were observed and interacted with in
the same way to maintain consistency of circumstances in which the parties
gave evidence and made submissions.
5. This was important in light of an issue Mr Madu raised on the first day. He
suggested that it would be unfair for the case to proceed with the lay
members attending remotely because they would not be able to perceive
the demeanour of the witnesses in evaluating the evidence. The Tribunal
considered the matter carefully but decided to continue. We accept it may
not be ideal for part of the Tribunal to attend remotely and another part to
be present. However the key is a fair hearing, not an ideal hearing. A fair
hearing was still possible. There was nothing to suggest that it was going
to be unfair in this case. The circumstances prevailing at the time meant
that there was no alternative but for an adjournment of a duration whose
length could not safely be predicted. The case was already quite old, and it
was not fair to either party to delay further. Delay would also affect the
quality of the memory of individuals, and this was a case where their own
evidence would be important. Remote and hybrid hearings had worked in
To continue reading
Request your trial