The Chief Constable of Cleveland Police

10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 March 2017 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr M Rashad Respondent: The Chief Constable of Cleveland Police Heard at Newcastle On: 15-19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29-31 January and 1 February 2024 In Chambers: 5, 7 and 8 February and 21 March 2024 Before: Employment Judge Aspden Members: Ms S Don Mr E Euers Representation Claimant: Ms Hogben, counsel Respondent: Mr Healy, counsel RESERVED JUDGMENT The unanimous Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that: 1. The complaints referred to in these proceedings as Complaints 1 to 12 are struck out because the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine them. 2. None of the claimant’s remaining complaints are well founded. The complaints are dismissed. REASONS Introductory matters 1. The claimant complains that the respondent contravened the Equality Act 2010 by doing a number of acts or omissions that constituted: 1.1. victimisation contrary to s39 of the Equality Act 2010 read with section 27; and 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 March 2017 2 1.2. in some cases, harassment related to race contrary to s40 of the Equality Act 2010 read with section 26; or 1.3. direct race discrimination contrary to s39 of the Equality Act 2010 read with section 13. 2. The procedural history to the claims is not straightforward. 3. The proceedings began on 20 August 2021, when the claimant submitted his ET1 to the Employment Tribunal. He was legally represented at the time and has been throughout. 4. The claimant (or his representative) ticked the box on the claim indicating he was making a claim that he had been discriminated against on the ground of race. He (or his representative) also ticked the box saying he was making another type of claim which the Tribunal can deal with. In the space provided for the claimant to set out the nature of that claim the claimant ...