Ex-asylum seeker with infosec degree loses discrimination claim against UK cyber range provider after storming out
- Reference: 1615892471
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/03/16/cyber_range_racial_discrimination_judgment/
- Source link:
The anonymous man, who worked for an unnamed company that set up a UK cyber range in mid-2019, told the Employment Tribunal that he had quit after being subjected to racial harassment at work – but judges [1]overruled all of his legal claims.
[2]
Although he gained a "postgraduate degree in computer security systems", his three months working for the 1,000-strong "technology services" business ended with petty squabbles over the use of a laptop instead of a workstation – and serious accusations of racial discrimination.
Described by his former colleagues as "extremely technically competent", the man entered the UK in 2004 unable to speak English and with no computer skills either, though he considerably bettered himself over the next 15 years. Yet when he joined the company, the man's working relationship with his bosses soon broke down to the point where he stormed off home after getting into a shouting match with a manager.
[3]
The man, who was not named by the Employment Tribunal, alleged that two of his managers had told him they were "employed by MI5 and MI6", were "watching him closely" and that he should be "very careful what he was doing".
Employment Judge Laura Howden-Evans, sitting on on a three-person panel, ruled: "Neither man had ever worked for MI5 or MI6. We do not accept that this remark was made to the Claimant."
Conceived as a new line of business, the cyber range was set up in March 2019 by the company's European cybersecurity personnel. Local talent was hired to run it during April with its first customer demo scheduled for mid-June. Its format was described in some detail by the tribunal:
The Cyber Range was set up in a separate room. It comprised of a large video wall of 9 individual screens and 6 computers each with its own workstation. 3 of these computers/workstations (the "blue machines") were facing the video wall; 2 of these computers/workstations (the "red machines") were not facing the video wall and there was a separate administration computer/workstation (the "purple machine") located in the room.
Deployment of the range infrastructure was shaky, with workstations encountering faults after apparently being deployed with incompatible software builds. These needed updates before they could be used for their intended purpose.
"Managers did not realise that there were still problems with some of the range's computers," said the tribunal, adding: "As the Claimant hit a problem with a computer, he would revert to working on the range laptop."
This annoyed his managers, who expected their personnel to use the dedicated range hardware for demonstrating the £500,000 project. It came to a head with a shouting match, with the man storming off home after telling Mr A "No, you leave the room!" Shortly afterwards he resigned, before filing an employment tribunal claim alleging a dozen different forms of mistreatment by his bosses, including that he would have to give up his annual leave to attend CISSP training. Not one of his claims were upheld.
The tribunal ruled that the company, which was also anonymised in its judgment, had not racially discriminated against the man, nor harassed him because of his race – and neither had it constructively dismissed him.
[4]
"We are satisfied that Mr A would have taken exactly the same approach with an employee that did not share the Claimant's race – the reason Mr A was asking the Claimant to do this was because the Respondent had demonstrations coming up; it had nothing whatsoever to do with the Claimant's country of birth," concluded the tribunal. ®
Get our [5]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/z-v-y-1602004-slash-2019
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YFDkK@meQdF3iOBC1IwxAAAAABU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YFDkK@meQdF3iOBC1IwxAAAAABU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YFDkK@meQdF3iOBC1IwxAAAAABU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
his managers had told him they were "employed by MI5 and MI6", were "watching him closely" and that he should be "very careful what he was doing"
I don't suppose there was any proof they actually said that to him, but bloody hell that sounds racist/xenophobic to me.
Er, why?
Is that supposed to be sarcasm?
Of course there's no evidence. These things were (allegedly) said, not emailed or messaged, few people are stupid enough to put these things in writing. The guy clearly didn't raise these issues with the company HR people prior to leaving, so there's nothing recorded, and it weakened his case significantly. I mean, they hired the guy which weakens the accusations a lot - they could easily have hired someone else.
They /may/ be true, but only the people involved know the truth. They /may/ be lies and fabrications.
Hint: Even if a job is pretty rubbish (but not abusive, etc), get yourself a new one before leaving and then move on. Some jobs just aren't meant to be (like other things in life), don't drag the pain out further if not necessary or you really have no proof for your claims (which your lawyer really should point out early on).
Go back.
Read article.
If they were watching him for MI5/6 the last thing they would do is tell him.
Mostly because the would be charged with breaking some obscure laws.
You mean the Official Secrets Act ?
It's existence is far from obscure.
winding up
Because it is so difficult / expensive to sack a dysfunctional employee in the UK, winding them up so that they leave (as might be construed in this case) is entirely rational behaviour.
With Brexit, the only way we are going to become more competitive internationally is if we row back on some of the employee protection and have a rather more dynamic workforce.
Re: winding up
You alreadu have zero-hour contracts which are the practical equivalent of indentured servitude, how much further would you like to "row back" ? Iron collars and shackles ?
Re: winding up
Ridiculous. The U.K. has some of the weakest employment protection in the western world.
In France and Germany it is almost impossible to sack an employee, and it takes months of effort and documentation to do it legally.
With nearly 4% of the work force on zero hours contracts, lowly paid internships, short term contracts etc. etc. Short of bringing back serfdom its difficult to see how the balance of power could be shifted to favour the employers more.
Perhaps a stable, respected, well paid workforce with rights and job security might go some way to competing with Germany's industrial might.
Allegations without consequences
It is simply not right that people should be able to throw allegations of racism around with no basis in fact yet walk away Scott free when these claims are found to be false. There should be consequences where these allegations are found to be false and maybe that would separate the troublemakers from the legitimate claimants, for example the claimant should be personally made to pay ALL legal costs and compensation for defamation if the claim fails.
Re: Allegations without consequences
Yes and No. It's very hard in most cases to prove what comments came out in a 1 on 1 scenario. It becomes the old he said/she said debacle. Most times, it gets decided purely on if anyone else was around, or which party seems the more believable. Putting some sort of restriction on people reporting racism, as per if its not proven then they have to pay costs, will simply put a dent in the number of people reporting racism and encourage the racists to keep it up. It will hurt the legitimate cases more than affect the troublemakers.
Perhaps if it can be proven the case has been made up (video of the incident) then maybe you can look into that sort of thing. But even if there are witnesses - Are they independent witnesses? How many people will back up their boss, to protect their career? How many people will back up a colleague at the risk of their career?
In this case, where the judge has smacked down the case on a dozen grounds, it certainly implies that he was making this up. But it doesnt prove it. The judge is basically saying on the balance of probabilities and the evidence provided, the company acted lawfully and not in a racist way. But thats quite a bit different to saying with absolutel authority that it didnt happen. So are you happy to additionally punish people on the "balance of probabilities"?
As Sir Humphry would no doubt respond, not finding something true does not mean finding that thing false.
Re: Allegations without consequences
Yeah let’s make it more difficult and risky for people to raise legitimate problems. We could make people pay a deposit any time they report a crime to the police too.
" It came to a head with a shouting match, with the man storming off home..."
So at least one person is channelling Piers Morgan.