The recent judgment (28.11.2024) from the appeal in the case of Aliyu v Tesco Stores Ltd [2024] EAT 185 dismissed the claimant's complaints of victimisation, harassment, and protected disclosure detriment.
The key legal findings were:-
The Employment Tribunal did not err in law in its determination that the claimant's complaints of victimisation, harassment, protected disclosure detriment, and dismissal were not made out.
The Employment Tribunal correctly applied the test for determining whether the claimant had suffered a "detriment" for the purposes of the victimisation and protected disclosure detriment claims.
The Employment Tribunal did not err in its finding that the alleged detrimental treatment was not "related to" the claimant's race for the purposes of the harassment claim.
The Employment Tribunal correctly found that the reason or principal reason for the claimant's dismissal was not that he had made protected disclosures.
Material Facts
The claimant was employed by Tesco Stores as a delivery driver.
The claimant made a complaint through the Tesco Stores' "Protector Line" alleging discrimination and harassment against his colleagues.
The claimant alleged that his manager made a "heil Hitler" salute towards him, which was rejected by the Employment Tribunal.
The claimant was suspended after an allegation that he had made a racial comment about a colleague.
After prolonged investigations, the claimant's grievance was rejected, and he was dismissed for misconduct.
The Employment Tribunal found that the protected disclosures and allegations of discrimination were not the reason for the claimant's treatment or dismissal.
The Law
Equality Act 2010
Employment Rights Act 1996
The principle of "detriment" and the test established in Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11
The principle of causation for victimisation and protected disclosure claims
The test for harassment under Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010
Submissions of the Parties
The claimant, representing himself, sought to re-argue his claim in the Employment Tribunal and assert that the Employment Judge was biased against him. The respondent defended the Employment Tribunal's findings and conclusions.
Court Rationale
The EAT found that the Employment Tribunal had correctly directed itself on the relevant legal tests and had applied those tests to the facts of the case. The EAT upheld the Employment Tribunal's findings that the alleged detrimental treatment did not amount to "detriments" for the purposes of the victimisation and protected disclosure detriment claims, and that the treatment was not "related to" the claimant's race for the purposes of the harassment claim.
The EAT held that the Employment Tribunal's conclusions on causation, that the claimant's protected acts and disclosures did not materially influence his treatment or dismissal, were reasonable and were not challenged on appeal.
The Decision
The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claimant's appeal.
NB. See our post on the relevance of detriment for purposes of victimisation, being central to establishing a claim under the Equality Act.
Comments