Paying for Discrimination?: Compensation in the Courts
| DOI | 10.1177/135822919800300204 |
| Published date | 01 September 1998 |
| Date | 01 September 1998 |
| Author | Aileen McColgan |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
International
Journal
of
Discrimination
and
the
Law,
1998,
Vol
.
3,
pp
.
135-142
1358-2291/98
$10
©
1998
A B Academic Publishers
. Printed in Great Britain
CASE NOTES
PAYING FOR DISCRIMINATION?
: COMPENSATION IN THE
COURTS
In
Armitage,
Marsden
&
HM
Prison
Service
v
Johnson
[1997]
IRLR
162, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an award of £21,000
for injury to feelings in a race discrimination case
. The award,
£1,000 of which was made against two of the complainant's fellow
employees, was the highest made by any industrial tribunal at the
time
. The Employment Appeal Tribunal also upheld an award of
£7,500
aggravated damages
: if this is incorporated within the `injury
to feelings' heading, as is often the practice of tribunals, the award
in
Armitage
remains the highest reported to date (September
1997)
.
The complainant, Mr Johnson, was an auxiliary officer at Brix-
ton prison who, after he remarked informally on the mistreatment of
a black prisoner, was ostracised by his colleagues and moved to
another wing when he complained
. He was thereafter `the subject of
false accusations
; was sent on "wild-goose chases" by more senior
officers
...
unfairly deprived of overtime while working nights
...
rostered to work overtime but told on arrival that he was not
wanted'
. When he turned to a law centre for help the hostility
increased, he was subjected to racist remarks, reprimanded for a
minor oversight in `officious and humiliating' tones, given a discrim-
inatory warning about sickness absences, and `given the "run-
around" by prison officers'
. On making a formal written complaint
to the governor, Mr Johnson's allegations were subjected to a `trav-
esty' of an investigation, the residential governor to whom the task
had been delegated failing to find the evidence of discrimination
which, in the opinion of EAT, he would have done with a proper
investigation, and concluding that the complainant was `obsessed
with his colour and that all the troubles were in his own mind
...
he thought that discrimination was a convenient excuse for all the
respondent's woes'
. Having had is complaint rejected, Mr Johnson
was then discriminatorily warned for conduct (leaving early on being
replaced on a shift) which was accepted practice and which had trig-
gered no investigation when engaged in by white officers
. At this
point he complained to the industrial tribunal who found in his
favour and awarded the £21,000 and
£7,500
aggravated damages,
together with damages in respect of financial loss suffered by him
.
Injury to feelings, not compensable in normal unfair dismissal
To continue reading
Request your trial