Mr S Sohpal v The commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs: 1601578/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 December 2022 |
| Date | 14 December 2022 |
| Published date | 04 January 2023 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 1601578/2021 |
| Subject Matter | Race Discrimination |
Case Number: 1601578/2021
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Mr S Sophal
Respondent:
The commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and
Customs
Heard at:
Cardiff in person and
by video (non legal
members)
On: 14 and 15 July 2022
Before:
Employment Judge R Harfield
Members
Mr P Collier
Mr C Stephenson
Representation:
Claimant:
The claimant represented himself
Respondent:
Ms Williams (counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
It is the unanimous decision of the Tribunal that the claimant’s complaints of
direct race discrimination and direct belief discrimination are not well founded
and are dismissed.
REASONS
Introduction
1. The claimant is an employee of the Respondent, working as a Compliance
Officer. Early conciliation started on 13 August 2021 and ended on 24
September 2021. The claim form was presented on 2 October 2021. The
claimant brings complaints of direct race discrimination and direct belief
discrimination. The respondent defends the claim.
2. The case was case managed by EJ Harfield on 28 March 2022. EJ Harfield
clarified the issues with the parties, working with the claimant as a litigant in
Case Number: 1601578/2021
2
person, and produced a list of issues for the final hearing within the case
management order.
3. The hearing took place on 14 and 15 July 2022. The Tribunal panel were
able to complete their deliberations but did not have sufficient time to
deliver an oral judgment. EJ Harfield apologises for the delay in delivering
this reserved Judgment. It has been caused by the summer break
combined with sitting in a series of long cases.
4. We had before us a bundle extending to 494 pages. References in
brackets [ ] are references to those pages in the bundle. We heard
evidence from, and had witness statements from, the claimant and from
Stephen Crockett for the respondent. Both parties provided oral closing
submissions which are not set out in detail within this Judgment but which
were taken fully into account in our decision making and some material
parts are referenced below. The respondent’s counsel also provided a
bundle of authorities. We explained to the claimant at the start of the
hearing that where his witness statement referenced documents that were
not in the bundle but referred to via a hyperlink, we had not read those
documents. This is because the tribunal is not able to undertake research
of our own or click on hyperlinks; the documents we are going to be
referred to/ are being asked to take into account need to be within the joint
bundle and directions were made at the case management stage to allow
that process to happen. That said, it seems unlikely the additional
documents would change the outcome in this case, as it would appear they
mostly relate to the claimant’s belief system, rather than the specific events
relating to the deletion of his Yammer posts, and we have found (for the
reasons set out below) that his belief is a protected belief.
5. In the course of closing submissions the claimant sought to argue that he
had been subject to indirect belief discrimination as well as or instead of
direct discrimination. We explained to him at the time that an indirect
discrimination claim was not before us to determine because it was not
how he had set out his complaint in his claim form as further clarified with
him, as a litigant in person, at the case management hearing. The evidence
we heard, and our decision making was focused on the issues as set out in
the list of issues which are direct discrimination complaints. The claimant
also observed in closing submissions that he was facing complicated law
and legal submissions from the respondent. It is a complicated area of law.
We offered the claimant more time again if he needed it before making his
closing comments, but he said he was content to proceed. We have of
course also made our decisions based on all the evidence before us, and
applying the law as we understand it to be, and not solely on what was said
by way of closing comments from either party.
Case Number: 1601578/2021
3
The issues to be decided
6. The List of Issues is set out as follows:
1. Direct race discrimination (Equality Act 2010 section 13)
1.1 The Claimant is British Indian.
1.2 Did the Respondent do the following things:
1.2.1 Delete the Claimant’s Yammer comment on 18 May 2021;
1.2.2 Delete the Claimant’s follow up Yammer comment on 18
May 2021;
1.3 Was that less favourable treatment?
The Tribunal will decide whether the Claimant was treated worse
than someone else was treated. There must be no material
difference between their circumstances and the Claimant’s.
If there was nobody in the same circumstances as the Claimant,
the Tribunal will decide whether he was treated worse than
someone else would have been treated.
The Claimant has not named anyone in particular who he says
was treated better than he was. He says that a non British Indian
person would not have had the same comments deleted, but
would instead have been contacted about the posts, with dialogue
about it, rather than it simply being deleted.
1.4 If so, was it because of race?
1.5 Did the Respondent’s treatment amount to a detriment?
2. Direct philosophical belief discrimination (Equality Act 2010
section 13)
2.1 Did the Claimant hold a protected characteristic of a philosophical
belief of the right to protest? In particular, applying, Grainger Plc
and others v Nicholson [2010] ICR 460 (as further clarified in
Forstater v CGD Europe and others UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ)
2.1.1 What exactly is the Claimant’s belief. The Claimant said it
was that: “Vaccinations for Covid 19 are the preparatory
To continue reading
Request your trial