The Claimant had been employed by the Respondent as a Member Relationship Manager before being dismissed, by non-confirmation of his employment, in July 2017. Both parties agreed that the Claimant did not have the continuity of employment necessary to lodge an unfair dismissal claim. Instead, the Claimant lodged a claim for direct race discrimination contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 (EQA) on the basis that he had experienced racism and harassment. In support of this claim, the Claimant argued that he was at “an immediate disadvantage” due to the racial stereotype applied by the Respondent, that the Respondent only wanted to employ staff from his own cultural background, and that he had been dismissed on false allegations. The Claimant also drew attention to the Respondent’s race demographic.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the Claimant’s appeal. The Claimant’s contention that he was disadvantaged due to racial stereotyping was not supported by evidence and his dismissal had taken place because the Respondent feared that he would be violent and as he had failed to raise and respond to false commission claims. It was found that the Claimant had not satisfied the requisite standard of proof to establish that the Respondent treated him less favourably than it treats others because of his race , as set out in section 136 of the EQA and the relevant case law. Lastly, the EAT held that the Respondent was not obliged to raise the issues depended upon for the dismissal with the Claimant in advance, even if the approach was not “necessarily best practice”.