Race victimisation appeal dismissed in court

In the case of Kwabla Gad v UK Power Networks (Operations) Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal regarding claims of race victimisation filed by Mr. Kwabla Gad. The judgement, given by His Honour Judge James Tayler on 10 June 2025, primarily examined the legal definitions of victimisation as outlined in the Equality Act 2010 and the specific complaints put forth by Mr. Gad against his employer.

The appeal arose from an earlier ruling by the Employment Tribunal, which had rejected Mr. Gad's claims of racial discrimination and victimisation following a detailed five-day hearing from 10 to 14 October 2022. Central to Mr. Gad’s case was the assertion that he faced victimisation after initiating tribunal proceedings due to racial discrimination, leading to perceived detriment.

The tribunal's decision was significant in exploring the nuances of what constitutes victimisation, particularly in relation to how language and previous grievances could affect employer behaviour. Initially, the Employment Tribunal found that Mr. Gad’s claims did not establish a pattern of victimisation in line with legal criteria.

One key finding involved an email authored by Mr. David Child, a manager at UK Power Networks, dated 21 February 2018, which raised concerns about Mr. Gad's behaviour, describing him as "extremely difficult to manage." The tribunal assessed whether this email could serve as evidence of racially motivated victimisation linked to Mr. Gad's previous tribunal claim. Ultimately, they determined that it demonstrated legitimate managerial concerns rather than discrimination, asserting that the email should not be "taken out of context" and signifying a need for better management rather than any inherent bias.

Moreover, when evaluating Mr. Gad's concerns, the Tribunal noted that he had made numerous significant errors that warranted his placement on a performance improvement plan. The ruling clarified that Mr. Gad was not facing detriment due to his race but rather due to documented performance-related issues.

The Tribunal also examined Mr. Gad's allegations of detriment, which included not being selected for certain positions or denied training opportunities. They concluded these decisions stemmed from performance issues tied to Mr. Gad’s work history, affirming that other employees, irrespective of race, experienced similar outcomes under analogous conditions.

The Tribunal's findings reaffirmed the standards necessary to substantiate victimisation claims under the Equality Act. They highlighted the requirement for claimants to establish a demonstrable connection between any perceived detriment and previous claims made.

In its judgement, the EAT reiterated that victimisation does not have to be motivated by conscious intent, emphasising that the detriment must be significant and also underscoring the shifting burden of proof in discrimination cases. The conclusions indicated that the Employment Tribunal had acted appropriately within its jurisdiction and understood the law correctly.

In conclusion, the EAT upheld the earlier Tribunal's verdict, thereby dismissing Mr. Gad's appeal. This case serves as an important reference for understanding victimisation claims within employment law, particularly in situations where ongoing performance issues can rationalise an employer's actions. The judgement highlights the importance of proper legal channels in workplace disputes while also illustrating the complexities that arise when race intersects with workplace performance.