Easyjet Airline Company Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant, Mr R Barr, lodged a claim with the Employment Tribunal alleging unfair dismissal and discrimination due to sex and sexual orientation. The respondent, Easyjet Airline Company Limited, denied the claims and asserted that the dismissal was fair as it was based on gross misconduct. After a final hearing, the tribunal dismissed all claims.

The tribunal found that the dismissal was fair, based on the respondent's assertion that it was justified as a response to gross misconduct, and rejected the claimant's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims on their merits following a full hearing.

• •unfair dismissal and failure to provide written reasons for dismissal
• •discrimination because of sex and sexual orientation

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100103/2025 Held in Edinburgh on 16, 17 and 18 June 2025 Employment Judge M Robison Mr R Barr Claimant In Person Easyjet Airline Company Limited Respondent Represented by Ms J Darling Solicitor JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the claims are not well-founded and are dismissed. REASONS 1. The claimant lodged a claim with the Employment Tribunal on 23 January 2025 claiming unfair dismissal as well as failure to provide written reasons for dismissal and discrimination because of sex and sexual orientation. The respondent entered a defence resisting the claims, denying discrimination and asserting that dismissal, by reason of gross misconduct, intimated in writing, was fair. 2. Following a case management preliminary hearing which took place on 21 March 2025, the claim for sex discrimination was withdrawn and dismissed in a decision dated 26 March 2025. The note issued following that preliminary hearing set out a comprehensive list of issues to be determined at this final hearing. 3. At the outset of the final hearing, the claimant advised that he was seeking to rely on video and/or audio recordings. Ms Darling objected to those being considered at this hearing, primarily because she had not been aware of them until very recently, her witnesses were not aware of them and she had not had a chance to take statements or instructions on them. In the circumstances, I refused to allow the claimant to introduce them at this late stage, for those reasons but also because the respondent had not taken them into account at the hearing or appeal. I explained to the claimant that he could 4100103/2025Page2 give evidence about standard public announcement scripts, which is what …