Race discrimination victim awarded significant damages
A Pharmacists’ Defence Association member has been awarded significant damages, after experiencing serious racial discrimination in the workplace.
Ranjit O’Mahony, senior solicitor in our employment team has reviewed the case following publication of the remedy judgment.
Mr Famojuro has had to fight a long battle to finally get justice.
The tribunal decision has highlighted the importance employers should place on thoroughly investigating race discrimination complaints. It is an employer’s duty to carry out a fair and robust investigation into any allegations of discrimination.
Boots Management Services Ltd failed in its duty to its employee and in doing so, spectacularly let down Mr Famojuro, resulting in this judgment which awarded significant damages for both injury to feelings and aggravated damages.
Mr Famojuro was subject to abhorrent treatment which was clearly related to his race. The tribunal found that he was stereotyped and racially profiled by other members of staff, behaviour which portrayed him as an ‘aggressive black man’, causing him severe distress.
The tribunal was particularly concerned by the inconsistent and untruthful evidence of the respondents’ witnesses. Their evidence appeared to be distorted and exaggerated, and there were clear inconsistencies in their accounts of the incident.
If a fair and robust investigation had been carried out at the time of the complaint, these inconsistencies would have been picked up, if they had apologised for their conduct this matter might have been resolved which would have avoided the time, additional distress, and cost of litigation. It is worth pointing out that these types of claims are complex and difficult claims to pursue, and Mr Famojuro was fortunate to have the support of a trade union such as the PDA.
The case also raises serious questions about the grievance policies of the employer. Boots Management Services Ltd is a massive national employer and should therefore be the exemplar when it comes to defending the rights of its employees.
Those investigating grievances should be properly trained to do so, particularly with regards to serious complaints of race discrimination. As it was, the tribunal found that the investigating officers not only had no training in handling discrimination complaints, but they also only had a simplistic understanding of what discrimination is. As a result, their failure to carry out a fair investigation meant that Mr Famojuro was subjected to further distress.
It is only right that Mr Famojuro was awarded significant damages, including aggravated damages for the treatment that he suffered. The tribunal found that there was a sufficient causal link between the respondents’ lies and the incurring of legal costs that it also took the rare step of ordering the employer to pay significant costs back to the trade union that had supported Mr Famojuro.
I hope that this case will encourage all employers, large or small, to review their policies and take steps to ensure race discrimination complaints are properly and fairly investigated. If cases such as this are to be avoided in future, employers must ensure that claims are dealt with seriously, and that those who are appointed to investigate grievances are well equipped to do so.
