EmploymentEmployee racially attacked on day out shouting and brandishing chair - dismissed from employment for using violent and abusive language pursuant to employers' policy of disregarding provocation or mitigation - no direct racial discriminationSidhu v Aerospace Composite Technology Ltd CA (Peter Gibson, Brooke and Robert Walker LJJ):26 May 2000The employee, a Sikh, on a day out arranged by the company, was racially abused and assaulted by another employee and retaliated by shouting and brandishing a chair.

The employee was subsequently dismissed under the company's policy that if an employee used violent or abusive language, he would be dismissed regardless of whether there had been provocation or mitigating circumstances.

He applied to an employment tribunal which found that he had been unfairly dismissed but that the company was not vicariously liable for the other employee and that there had been no direct racial discrimination.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal, on appeal, found that there had been direct discrimination.

The company appealed.Manjit Gill QC and Manjit Panesar (instructed by Commission for Racial Equality) for the employee.

Simon Cheves (instructed by Machins, Luton) for the company.Held, allowing the appeal, that a policy which allowed for dismissal of an employee found guilty of using violent or abusive language without regard to any provocation or any mitigating circumstances was not race-specific for the purposes of s.1(1)(a) of the Race Relations Act 1976, so that an employee alleging direct racial discrimination had to show that a white person or someone from a different race was or would be treated differently; and that since the employee had not proved that a comparator had been treated differently, the finding of the tribunal that he had not been directly discriminated against would be upheld.