Komeng v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

Komeng v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

The applicant's claims fail because the employer's actions were based on a generalised concern to ensure entitlement to work, not on racial grounds, and the comparator analysis and legal principles established in Dhatt v McDonald's Hamburgers Limited are binding and dispositive.

Parties
Applicant: Komeng; Respondent: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Direct Discrimination, Harassment, Victimisation, Immigration Status Checks, Comparator Analysis
Employment Law Equality Law Direct Discrimination Harassment Victimisation Immigration Status Checks Comparator Analysis

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Komeng

Applicant

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether repeated immigration status checks constituted direct racial discrimination
  2. 2 Whether reduction of working hours based on incorrect immigration information constituted discrimination
  3. 3 Whether rejection of grievance amounted to discrimination or victimisation

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's claims fail because the employer's actions were based on a generalised concern to ensure entitlement to work, not on racial grounds, and the comparator analysis and legal principles established in Dhatt v McDonald's Hamburgers Limited are binding and dispositive.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal is refused