The Claimant was a serial litigant. In four years, he made ten internal grievances with his employer and also lodged seven Employment Tribunal claims against them. Most of these allegations were found to be without any proper evidential basis or any grounds for the Claimant’s suspicion. Eventually, the employer dismissed the Claimant due to an alleged breakdown in trust and confidence. The employer made clear to the Claimant that while his allegations of discrimination had been taken seriously and investigated thoroughly, they would not be taken forward. The employer also believed it could not have a sustainable working relationship with the Claimant. Mr Woodhouse launched a further Employment Tribunal claim. As part of this, he alleged victimisation, claiming that because of his repeated complaints of race discrimination he had been treated less favourably than others would have been treated.

The Tribunal held that the Claimant had not suffered victimisation, because the employer would have dismissed any employee who had brought a comparable number of unfounded claims. Thus the employer had not treated the Claimant less favourably because of his race. The EAT overturned the Tribunal’s decision.

The EAT held that the grievances and the Tribunal claims were “protected acts”, and that Mr Woodhouse’s dismissal for having made those protected acts amounted to victimisation. There no suggestion of bad faith on the Claimant’s part, which would have prevented the grievances amounting to, protected acts. http://bit.ly/16ORkCH