DISCRIMINATION - 08.12.2021

Regional accents and race discrimination claims

In Ryan v Robertson and Son Ltd, the employee claimed that he had been mocked by a manager over his Liverpudlian accent and this amounted to an act of discrimination. What did the tribunal decide?

Background facts

Anthony Ryan (AR), who grew up in Liverpool and has a Liverpudlian accent, began working for Robertson and Son Ltd in August 2020. AR was employed on a five-year fixed term contract which was due to expire in August 2025.

In January 2021 AR agreed to accompany his colleague, Mr Cox (C), to a grievance hearing. They had expected this grievance hearing to be conducted in person.

Remote hearing

However, when AR and C arrived they were given a laptop and informed that it would be occurring remotely as the chair of the meeting, Sonia Robertson (SR), had been required to self-isolate by NHS Test and Trace.

At this point, a heated argument broke out. AR and C felt that the grievance hearing should be postponed so that SR could attend in person.

Harry Enfield

Apparently, another member of staff who was present, Margaret Robertson (MR), then repeatedly told AR to “calm down, calm down” . AR felt that MR was deliberately mocking his scouse accent and was “offended” by her actions.

AR subsequently claimed racediscrimination on the grounds of ethnic or national origin and referred the tribunal to the fact that this particular phrase was formerly used by Harry Enfield in various sketches that had poked fun at three Liverpudlian characters.

Tribunal ruling

The tribunal struck out AR’s racediscrimination claim on the basis that it had “no reasonable prospect of success” (see The next step ). It reached this decision because the Equality Act 2010 does not specifically protect regional distinctions, such as accents.

Acas guidance also states that an employee working in the south of England who believes that they are being treated unfairly because they are a Geordie is unlikely succeed in a claim of racediscrimination .

Regional and national

Therefore, even if MR’s comments had directly mocked AR because of his Liverpudlian background, he had no grounds on which to bring a race discrimination claim.

Interestingly, the tribunal pointed out that had MR’s comments been linked to AR being English, which is a reference to national origin rather than regional origin, his claim of race discrimination might well have succeeded.

Tip. Whilst this ruling is helpful to employers, it’s easy to overlook the fact that it only came about because the employer failed to inform an employee and his workplace companion about changes to a grievance hearing. Where these need to be held remotely (which is permissible), don’t spring this on the employee at the start of the meeting. Agree this with them in advance.

For the tribunal’s ruling in this case, visit https://www.tips-and-advice.co.uk , Download Zone, year 23, issue 22.

The tribunal dismissed the claim on the basis that it had “no reasonable prospect of success” because the Equality Act 2010 doesn’t specifically protect regional distinctions, such as accents. However, had the employee been mocked for being English, which relates to nationality, his discrimination claim might well have succeeded.

© Indicator - FL Memo Ltd

Tel.: (01233) 653500 • Fax: (01233) 647100

subscriptions@indicator-flm.co.ukwww.indicator-flm.co.uk

Calgarth House, 39-41 Bank Street, Ashford, Kent TN23 1DQ

VAT GB 726 598 394 • Registered in England • Company Registration No. 3599719