Henna Jaleel v Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
[2023] EAT 10
Jagbir Sidhu v Our Place Schools Limited
23 May 2023
[2023] EAT 70
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Mr. Sidhu claimed his workplace was racially discriminatory. A judge initially sided with his employer. Mr. Sidhu appealed, but a higher court judge agreed with the first judge and said the employer wasn't guilty of discrimination. The higher court judge found that even if there were some small mistakes in the first judgment, there was enough other good evidence to support the original decision.
Key Facts
- •Jagbir Sidhu (Appellant) appealed an Employment Tribunal judgment dismissing his race discrimination claims against Our Place Schools Ltd (Respondent).
- •The appeal focused on two allegations of harassment under s. 26 of the Equality Act 2010 (EA10):
- •Allegation 1: A trainer, Mr. Beedie, made a sawing gesture during a discussion about the persecution of Sikhs.
- •Allegation 5: Holly Green made a comment about the lack of 'coloured people' in Herefordshire.
- •The Tribunal found the Appellant's evidence not credible and preferred the Respondent's evidence.
- •The Appellant argued the Tribunal misapplied the law in assessing the allegations.
Legal Principles
Harassment occurs if unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic violates dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment.
Equality Act 2010, s. 26(1)
In deciding the effect of conduct, the perception of the victim, other circumstances, and reasonableness of the effect must be considered.
Equality Act 2010, s. 26(4)
Not every racially slanted comment constitutes dignity violation; the comment must be more than trivial or transitory, especially if unintentional.
Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal [2009] ICR 724
Context is crucial when assessing the effect of a remark; a humorous remark differs from vindictive words. Intent generally influences effect assessment.
HM Land Registry v Grant
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal's findings were not perverse and were supported by evidence. The Appellant's arguments that the Tribunal failed to ask the right questions were unfounded, and even if true, there was ample other evidence to support the Tribunal's decision.