Mr S Collins v Devo Technology UK Ltd: 2201551/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 February 2022 |
| Citation | 2201551/2021 |
| Date | 28 February 2022 |
| Published date | 18 March 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Race Discrimination |
Case Numbers: 2201551/2021
1 of 30
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr S Collins
Respondents: Devo Technology UK Ltd
Heard at: London Central (remotely by CVP)
On: 8 - 11 February 2022
Before: Employment Judge Brown
Members: Ms O Stennett
Mr F Benson
Appearances
For the claimant: Ms Millin
For the respondent: Mr C Milsom
JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is:
1. The Respondent did not discriminate against the Claimant because of
race.
2. The Respondent did not victimise the Claimant.
3. The Respondent did not subject the Claimant to race harassment.
4. The Respondent unfairly dismissed the Claimant.
5. It is 80% likely that the Respondent, acting fairly, would have dismissed
the Claimant for matters known before and after dismissal. Compensation
should be reduced by 80%.
6. It is not just and equitable to reduce the amount of the basic or
compensatory awards further for contributory fault.
7. No uplift is appropriate for breach of the ACAS Code of Practice on
Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.
8. A Telephone Preliminary Hearing shall take place for 30 minutes before EJ
Brown at 9.30am on 14 March 2022 to give directions for a remedy hearing.
Case Numbers: 2201551/2021
2 of 30
REASONS
1. By a claim form presented on 3 April 2021, the Claimant brought complaints of
unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, race-related harassment and
victimisation against the Respondent, his former employer. The Respondent
resists these complaints.
2. The issues in the claim had been established at a Telephone Preliminary
Hearing on 4 August 2021. The Claimant had subsequently provided details of
his comparators. The agreed List of Issues was as follows:
Unfair Dismissal
1 Was there a potentially fair reason for the dismissal? The Respondent
claims that it
was capability/some other substantial of such a kind as to justify
dismissal (“SOSR”).
2 The Respondent concedes that the dismissal was unfair because no
process was
followed.
3 Whether any compensation awarded to the Claimant should be
increased because of the failure to follow the ACAS Code of Conduct
4 Whether any compensation awarded to the Claimant should be
reduced having regard to what it would be just and equitable to award,
and because of Polkey, contributory conduct, failure to mitigate and
conduct that came to light after the dismissal.
Direct race discrimination
5 The Claimant describes himself as Caribbean-Black-White-Mixed.
Whether the Respondent directly discriminated against the Claimant by:
(a) Dismissing him and/or
(b) Refusing to provide him the reasons for his dismissal.
The named comparators for unfair dismissal are Dean Robertson and
Nikolas Eklov White Caucasian. Their employment was not terminated.
The comparator /s for the failure to provide reasons are hypothetical
White Caucasian employees whose employment has been terminated
within 12 months of the Claimant’s dismissal, and their treatment by the
Respondent.
To continue reading
Request your trial