C Tchapdeu v Unipart Group Ltd

In a direct discrimination claim, a tribunal may focus on the reason for the treatment without first undertaking a comparison exercise. An actual comparator whose circumstances differ materially from the claimant's is of no assistance. Under section 23 of the Equality Act 2010, transferred employees required to work full-time for operational reasons were materially different from existing part-time staff at the new site.

A provision, criterion or practice must concern the way similar cases generally are, or would be, treated. A response directed to one employee's repetitive grievances about matters already in litigation will not ordinarily constitute such a practice.

The Claimant transferred from the Respondent's Nuneaton site to Magna Park after work at Nuneaton diminished. His existing flexible-working arrangement could not be accommodated on the transfer because displaced staff were required to work full-time. He alleged direct and indirect race discrimination, victimisation and associative disability discrimination after his requests for flexible working and subsequent grievances were rejected.

The Leicester Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims. The Claimant appealed principally on the basis that the Tribunal had given inadequate reasons, including for rejecting his comparators, preferring the Respondent's evidence, accepting the grievance investigations, rejecting victimisation, treating allegations against one manager as out of time, and finding no relevant PCP.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal gave adequate reasons and made no error of law.
2. Under section 23 of the Equality Act 2010, the Claimant's proposed comparators were materially different because they had not transferred from Nuneaton to Magna Park. The Tribunal was therefore entitled to regard them as irrelevant. It was also entitled to determine the fundamental question directly: why the Claimant had been required to work full-time. The Tribunal permissibly found that operational business needs, and not race or the Claimant's wife's disability, were the reason.
3. The Tribunal was entitled to prefer the Respondent's evidence. Its assessment was supported by contemporaneous documents, the Claimant's changing formulation of his protected characteristic, and findings that he had made untrue allegations and had misled his team leader about the agreed transfer terms.
4. The Tribunal's findings showed that the grievance investigations were professional, sufficiently thorough and untainted by discrimination. It was not necessary that every person named in a grievance be interviewed; an employer may adopt an investigation proportionate to the issue.
5. The Claimant's protected acts could not explain treatment by decision-makers who were unaware of them. The Respondent's decision not to entertain repetitive 2017 grievances concerned matters already addressed and in Tribunal proceedings, while preserving consideration of fresh grievances.
6. The allegation concerning Ms Gill was capable of being treated as a single, out-of-time act rather than conduct extending over time. The 2017 response was particular to the Claimant's repetitive complaints and did not establish a PCP applicable, or likely to be applicable, to others.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed: [2022] EAT 25.
• Leicester Employment Tribunal: Dismissed claims of direct and indirect discrimination, victimisation and associative disability discrimination.