The Claimant complained of discrimination on grounds of race and/or religion or belief after incidences at work which involved a sawing gesture made by a colleague (which the Claimant said Sikhs found offensive) and another colleague using the words 'coloured people' which the Claimant said she would not have used if he had been white. The ET rejected his claims, saying there had been “stark conflicts of evidence in this case about events that are alleged to have taken place” and in general, it preferred the evidence of the Respondent to that of the Claimant, finding his evidence not to be credible. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET did not err in rejecting the Claimant’s claims of harassment on racial grounds. The Claimant’s arguments that the ET had failed, in certain respects, to ask itself the right questions when applying the statutory definition in s. 26 of the Equality Act 2010 were unfounded and in any event could not succeed in circumstances where there was ample other foundation for the ET to have rejected the claims, and no challenge on grounds of perversity had been mounted.