Victimisation

Case 4: The facts

Mr Henry made a number of complaints against his managers, including claims of race discrimination. Relations between him and his employer deteriorated.

Henry was called to a disciplinary hearing, on the grounds that he had failed to comply with his employer's procedures for investigating his complaints and had compromised working relationships. He was then called to a "performance review and development" (PRD) interview.

He claimed that both the disciplinary action and the PRD interview amounted to victimisation as a result of his race discrimination claims.

The ruling

The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the PRD interview was an inappropriate way of dealing with the issues, and that - as the employer had failed to explain why it took the PRD approach - this could amount to discrimination.

However, if the employer had called the PRD interview in the belief that Henry was failing to assist in the investigation of his complaints (and not because he had made the complaints), this would not amount to victimisation - even though the employer had been wrong to believe that he was in breach of the grievance procedures.

The case was sent back to the tribunal, which had not properly considered the reason for the PRD interview, to consider those issues.

London Metropolitan University v Henry UKEAT/0344/04