Mr S Gehlen v Allay (UK) Ltd: 2500144/2018
| Judgment Date | 07 March 2019 |
| Date | 07 March 2019 |
| Citation | 2500144/2018 |
| Published date | 08 April 2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Race Discrimination |
Case Number: 2500144/2018
1
`
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Claimant Respondent
Mr S Gehlen AND Allay (UK) Limited
JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL
Heard at: North Shields On: 28-30 November 2018 (inclusive)
Deliberations: 18 January 2019
Before: Employment Judge A M Buchanan
Non-Legal members: Ms L Jackson and Ms P Wright
Appearances
For the Claimant: Mr Richard Owen – Gateshead CAB
For the Respondent: Ms A Niaz - Dickinson of Counsel
JUDGMENT
It is the unanimous Judgment of the Tribunal that:
1. The claim of direct race discrimination is not well-founded and is dismissed.
2. The claim of harassment related to race is well-founded and the claimant is entitled
to a remedy.
3. The claim of ordinary unfair dismissal is dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.
4. The respondent is ordered to pay forthwith to the claimant the sum of £5030.63p as
compensation for harassment related to race.
REASONS
Preliminary Matters
1. By an ET1 filed on 30 January 2018 the claimant brought complaints to the Tribunal
of race discrimination pursuant to the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 (“the 2010
Act”) and a claim of unfair dismissal. The claimant relied on an early conciliation
certificate on which Day A was 7 December 2017 and Day B was 7 January 2018. The
respondent filed its response on 28 February 2018 and denied all liability to the
claimant.
Case Number: 2500144/2018
2
1.2 A private Preliminary Hearing (“PH”) by telephone took place before Employment
Judge Johnson on 9 April 2018 when orders were made. The claim of unfair dismissal
was dismissed on withdrawal but no Judgment to that effect was issued. That matter is
confirmed in this Judgment. At the private PH, the claimant was ordered to provide
further information in respect of his allegations of discrimination. Identification of the
issues in the claims was postponed pending further information being produced.
1.3 On 27 April 2018 the claimant filed further information in respect of the claims of
discrimination. The claims advanced were of direct race discrimination and harassment
related to race. On 18 May 2018 the respondent filed an amended response which
responded to the further information provided by the claimant.
1.4 In the face of the stated intention of the respondent to seek to strike out the claims
of direct discrimination and harassment, the claimant filed amended further particulars
of his claims on 10 July 2018.
1.5 A final hearing was set for 15-17 August 2018 but was vacated by reason of the
unavailability of a witness for the respondent and the matter was relisted to take place
on 28-30 November 2018 and came before this Tribunal on those days.
1.6 At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal reserved its decision. This Judgment is
issued with full reasons in order to comply with the provisions of Rule 62(2) of Schedule
I to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
It is regretted that the pressure of other judicial duties have meant that this Judgment is
only able to be promulgated at this time.
The claims
2 The claimant advances the following claims to the Tribunal:-
2.1 A claim of direct race discrimination relying on the provisions of sections 9, 13
and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”).
2.2 A claim of harassment related to race relying on the provisions of sections 9, 26
and 40 of the 2010 Act.
The Issues
Note: the identities of those referred to by initials in this paragraph 3 are set out in
paragraph 4 unless otherwise stated.
3 The issues in the various claims are:
Factual allegations in respect of the claim of direct race discrimination
3.1. Was the claimant regularly excluded from high level meetings and only invited to
4 or 5 such meetings during his period of employment? Was the claimant treated
differently in this regard to his comparator Cheyne Ravenscroft (“CR”)? Was CR
junior to the claimant?
To continue reading
Request your trial