Footballer wins race harassment claim, club found vicariously liable

Original source: Read the original article from Daily Mail ↗

Factual summary

An employment tribunal partially ruled in favour of Amrit Bansal-McNulty, upholding three claims of harassment on the grounds of race against his former manager, John Yems. The tribunal found Crawley Town vicariously liable for Yems' conduct, which included calling Mr Bansal-McNulty a 'curry muncher' and asking about 'curry pizza'. Claims against QPR were dismissed. Mr Bansal-McNulty is seeking approximately £12 million in compensation, claiming psychiatric and career-ending injury.

What happened

Amrit Bansal-McNulty brought claims of direct race and religious discrimination and harassment against QPR, Crawley Town, and John Yems. Allegations included John Yems calling Mr Bansal-McNulty a 'curry muncher' and asking about 'curry pizza'. Mr Bansal-McNulty also accused QPR and then-manager Chris Ramsey of failing to act on his racism complaint, alleging intimidating questioning. An employment tribunal upheld three claims of harassment on the grounds of race against John Yems, finding Crawley Town vicariously liable for his conduct. Claims against QPR were dismissed. The FA charged John Yems for discriminatory language, upholding 11 out of 15 charges, leading to a three-year ban from English football. Mr Bansal-McNulty is seeking £12 million in compensation, claiming psychiatric and career-ending injury.

Why this matters

This case highlights several critical workplace process issues. Employers can be held vicariously liable for the discriminatory acts of their employees, even senior managers, underscoring the need for robust anti-discrimination policies and training. The handling of employee complaints is crucial; allegations of inadequate response or intimidating questioning can lead to further claims. Furthermore, the case demonstrates the significant personal and professional impact discriminatory behaviour can have on individuals, potentially leading to substantial compensation claims and career disruption.

UK workplace relevance

All UK employers have a duty to prevent discrimination and harassment in the workplace. This case reinforces that employers can be held vicariously liable for the actions of their staff, even if they were unaware of the specific incidents. It underscores the necessity for clear anti-discrimination policies, regular and effective training for all staff, particularly managers, and transparent, impartial grievance procedures. The potential for high compensation claims highlights the financial and reputational risks associated with failing to address such issues promptly and effectively.

What an employee may wish to document

• Record all complaints of discrimination or harassment, including dates, times, specific allegations, and individuals involved.
• Document the steps taken to investigate complaints, including interviews conducted, evidence gathered, and decisions made.
• Maintain records of all communications with the complainant and alleged perpetrator, ensuring impartiality and confidentiality where appropriate.
• Document any disciplinary actions taken, including the rationale and outcomes, and any appeals process.
• Keep comprehensive records of anti-discrimination and equality training provided to all staff, especially managers, to demonstrate proactive measures.
• Record any support offered to employees affected by discriminatory behaviour, such as counselling or adjustments.

Related guidance and tools

ACAS guidance · How to document workplace bullying · Workplace incident log

Workplace Watch UK provides general information, not legal advice. HRBot iWitness does not replace a solicitor, trade union, ACAS or emergency services, and no outcome is guaranteed. To request a correction, contact the editorial team.