Possible Racial Bias with Redundancy

thebrexitunicorn

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

The Isle of Man isn't in the UK and never has been, so I suppose you are technically of a different nationality to someone born in the UK itself.  On that basis you might be able to claim discrimination based on that; the protected category encompasses race, colour and nationality.  'Scottish' isn't a separate nationality legally speaking, therefore wouldn't fall under the same protections.  

I’d be interested to know the case law or legislation that you are referring to.   I understand that race discrimination can be claimed on the basis of national origin. If a Welsh person working elsewhere in the UK was dismissed because their manager didn’t like Welsh people it could certainly be challenged as unlawful race discrimination.

OP I don’t know how likely your claim would be to succeed, there isn’t enough information to hazard an opinion. You could speak to an employment law solicitor for a legal opinion. If you believe your Scottish nationality contributed to your dismissal then yes you can raise a claim under the Equality Act if you wish. 

MalMonroe

Bungle5393 said:

Middlestitch said:

Bungle5393 said:

I was the only Scottish person in our team of 6. The selection criteria that were used to select which 3 of us were to be made redundant placed me at a disadvantage, and I also don't believe I was scored fairly as part of the process.

Upon receiving this information, it now seems this was potentially racially-motivated. Obviously I can't prove it 100%, but how many organisations would condone 2 x HR people (who should really know better) using a racially-based nickname to refer to one of the senior managers and think that was acceptable?

I'm in the process of lodging an Employment Tribunal (just finished period of early conciliation - they didn't respond), and wondered how people think this term would be viewed by a tribunal.

Going back to the original question - depends on who is sitting on the ET, always assuming it gets that far (unlikely). It is certainly vanishingly improbable that the use of a nickname, however unprofessional or childish such a practice might be judged, is going to be sufficient grounds for claiming racial discrimination in selection for redundancy.

Why would you think it wouldn't get to tribunal?

I am also doubtful that it will get to a tribunal because of what you say -"Obviously I can't prove it 100%". At an Employment Tribunal you HAVE to be able to prove it 100% or you will lose. You have to be able to back up every single statement you make.

Then you say your employer did not complete and return a form ET3. The ET3 is a very important document. The employer will usually set out their response to your complaint and that becomes the summary of their case. It's difficult to believe that your employer ignored such an important document.

You're telling us that you have approached Acas with your claim, they have accepted it and have attempted conciliation, which failed? I really don't believe it. 

To bring a case to Employment Tribunal, you have to apply through Acas, who appoint a representative who contacts you to advise whether or not they consider that you have a viable case. It's not something to be taken lightly and it's a lot of hard work. My recommendation (I've successfully been through a Tribunal) would be to hire a good employment solicitor. Even then, it's a lot of hard work. The Employment Tribunal itself is an ordeal. Mine lasted three days and it was awful. Worth it in the end (I could prove it 100%) but absolutely awful.

You don't have witnesses or proof - as you readily admit - and you won't win at Tribunal.

noitsnotme

thebrexitunicorn said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

The Isle of Man isn't in the UK and never has been, so I suppose you are technically of a different nationality to someone born in the UK itself.  On that basis you might be able to claim discrimination based on that; the protected category encompasses race, colour and nationality.  'Scottish' isn't a separate nationality legally speaking, therefore wouldn't fall under the same protections.  

I’d be interested to know the case law or legislation that you are referring to.   I understand that race discrimination can be claimed on the basis of national origin. If a Welsh person working elsewhere in the UK was dismissed because their manager didn’t like Welsh people it could certainly be challenged as unlawful race discrimination.

OP I don’t know how likely your claim would be to succeed, there isn’t enough information to hazard an opinion. You could speak to an employment law solicitor for a legal opinion. If you believe your Scottish nationality contributed to your dismissal then yes you can raise a claim under the Equality Act if you wish. 

You’re right - https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/protected-characteristics/race-discrimination/

So does that mean despite being white British I can call myself ‘mixed race’ because I have Irish ancestry? 🤷‍♂️

Ditzy_Mitzy

thebrexitunicorn said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

The Isle of Man isn't in the UK and never has been, so I suppose you are technically of a different nationality to someone born in the UK itself.  On that basis you might be able to claim discrimination based on that; the protected category encompasses race, colour and nationality.  'Scottish' isn't a separate nationality legally speaking, therefore wouldn't fall under the same protections.  

I’d be interested to know the case law or legislation that you are referring to.   I understand that race discrimination can be claimed on the basis of national origin. If a Welsh person working elsewhere in the UK was dismissed because their manager didn’t like Welsh people it could certainly be challenged as unlawful race discrimination.

OP I don’t know how likely your claim would be to succeed, there isn’t enough information to hazard an opinion. You could speak to an employment law solicitor for a legal opinion. If you believe your Scottish nationality contributed to your dismissal then yes you can raise a claim under the Equality Act if you wish. 

That's interesting, thank you - the original source I looked at didn't clarify this point but others do.  I've had a look for it and can't see that there's any case law on the subject.  Even bringing a case would, no doubt, be a legal minefield.  There isn't, as far as I am aware, a legal definition of 'Scottish'.  The question is somewhat vexed:  
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/09/07/what-makes-person-scottish
with the Scots themselves unable to actually answer the question in any meaningful sense.  The Isle of Man issue is much clearer cut; it is internationally recognised as a separate territory and issues passports.  There is also a clear legal route to becoming a Manxman, as it is possible for one to attain naturalised status.  
It all gets a bit woolly with Scotland and Wales.  There's no separate citizenship offered and no path to actually becoming either Scottish or Welsh.  It seems to be a case of 'identifying as' such and hoping that one is accepted as so by the community.  
Perhaps discrimination would be based on the claimant's perception of being treated differently because he believes himself to be Scottish and, also, believes that the perpetrator is prejudiced against those he believes are Scottish.  
The perpetrator might, following the same line, argue that he doesn't consider the claimant to be Scottish at all, for some reason or other.
There isn't, in essence, a way of 'proving' Scottish nationality in the way that one, for example, can prove Manx or Polish or Indian nationality. 

nora_nora

The more i look at this the more i think the OP may well be clutching at straws. It's been asked more that once aside from the KoS reference, what was the actual context of the emails but he seems to keep dodging that question so I'm going to assume there was nothing discriminatory or defamatory in them. As such the only likely outcome of a tribunal on the grounds of being referred to as KoS is an order to pay the ex employers costs for bringing a vexatious claim.

JamoLew

There are maybe 2 issues at play
1) is there any sign/suggestion/case for  any racial discrimination
2) if yes to 1) - did that have any impact on the process

nora_nora

JamoLew said:

There are maybe 2 issues at play
1) is there any sign/suggestion/case for  any racial discrimination
2) if yes to 1) - did that have any impact on the process

It's 1) that seems to be the sticking point here. There doesn't seem to be any sign/suggestion from what I'm reading.

wilfred30

Personally, I think the OP needs to put their toys back in their pram and move on.

Ditzy_Mitzy

nora_nora said:

The more i look at this the more i think the OP may well be clutching at straws. It's been asked more that once aside from the KoS reference, what was the actual context of the emails but he seems to keep dodging that question so I'm going to assume there was nothing discriminatory or defamatory in them. As such the only likely outcome of a tribunal on the grounds of being referred to as KoS is an order to pay the ex employers costs for bringing a vexatious claim.

Rereading the OP's original post, he was actually referred to as the 'King of Scotland' and the 'Director of Training'.  On the assumption that he doesn't really hold either role there is an implication, perhaps, that he is thought of as a 'self appointed expert' by others on all matters training and Scotch.
But that's conjecture.  Without context all we've got are two nicknames that aren't intrinsically discriminatory; not a lot to go on, really.

nora_nora

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

nora_nora said:

The more i look at this the more i think the OP may well be clutching at straws. It's been asked more that once aside from the KoS reference, what was the actual context of the emails but he seems to keep dodging that question so I'm going to assume there was nothing discriminatory or defamatory in them. As such the only likely outcome of a tribunal on the grounds of being referred to as KoS is an order to pay the ex employers costs for bringing a vexatious claim.

Rereading the OP's original post, he was actually referred to as the 'King of Scotland' and the 'Director of Training'.  On the assumption that he doesn't really hold either role there is an implication, perhaps, that he is thought of as a 'self appointed expert' by others on all matters training and Scotch.
But that's conjecture.  Without context all we've got are two nicknames that aren't intrinsically discriminatory; not a lot to go on, really.

Exactly, and as he doesn't seem willing to clarify the context i don't think he's going to get the replies he wants to hear.