Quitongo v Airdrieonians Football Club & Anor (Rev1) (Whistleblowing, Protected Disclosures) [2024] EAT 201 (20 December 2024)

Quitongo v Airdrieonians Football Club & Anor (Rev1) (Whistleblowing, Protected Disclosures) [2024] EAT 201 (20 December 2024)

The tribunal erred in law by failing to apply section 27(3) of the Equality Act 2010 correctly, focusing on the truth of the protected act rather than whether it was made in bad faith. The refusal to communicate with the appellant's agent was because of the protected act and thus constituted victimisation. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EAT 201
Parties
Appellant: Mr Rico Quitongo; First Respondent: Airdrieonians Football Club; Second Respondent: Mr Paul Hetherington
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
20 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Harassment, Victimisation, Protected Characteristics, Investigation of Discrimination, Remedies
Employment Law Equality Law Harassment Victimisation Protected Characteristics Investigation of Discrimination Remedies

Source-derived case record

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

Mr Rico Quitongo

Appellant

Airdrieonians Football Club

First Respondent

Mr Paul Hetherington

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was victimised contrary to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 by the first respondent's refusal to communicate with his agent after 16 October 2021
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal erred in law in dismissing the victimisation claim
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal made adequate findings of fact in relation to the second harassment claim

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal erred in law by failing to apply section 27(3) of the Equality Act 2010 correctly, focusing on the truth of the protected act rather than whether it was made in bad faith. The refusal to communicate with the appellant's agent was because of the protected act and thus constituted victimisation. The tribunal also made inadequate findings of fact regarding the second harassment claim, necessitating remittal for further findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Set aside the tribunal's judgment of 23 November 2022 to the extent it dismissed the victimisation claim and the second harassment claim.
  • Substitute a finding that the appellant was victimised by the first respondent contrary to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 by its refusal to communicate with his agent after 16 October 2021.