Landmark cases : Thompson v London Central Bus Company

  • By The Alchemist About Town
  • 24 Aug, 2016

People stuff

In the case of Thompson v London Central Bus Company Ltd , the question of associative discrimination in relation to victimisation was considered.

Mr Thompson was a bus driver and he was disciplined for giving another employee his high-vis vest. He was already subject to a final written warning and was dismissed as a result of this disciplinary offence. He appealed the decision to dismiss and was successful. He ended up changing his stance by apologising and admitting he was in the wrong, which led to his employer instead revising its decision to 21 days unpaid suspension and a final written warning. He consequently dropped the unfair dismissal and notice pay claims, but pursued his claim for victimisation relating to the disciplinary action taken against him. This was on the basis that a protected act had been done by someone with whom Mr Thompson was associated (in the mind of management) and he alleged the disciplinary action against him was as a result.


Protected acts are, for example, acts such as making a discrimination claim, complaining about harassment or giving witness evidence regarding an employee’s discrimination complaint.

In this case, Mr Thompson had overheard a conversation involving colleagues (the conversation being the protected act), where it had been stated that certain employees had previously been deliberately targeted for opposing alleged wrongdoing by former management. He belonged to the same Trade Union as the employee who had carried out the protected act.


The employment judge at a preliminary hearing considered the causal connection between the protected acts and the detriment complained of. At this hearing, the claim was struck out as the employment judge was satisfied that the link between the Claimant (Mr Thompson) and the other employees (who did the protected act) was so tenuous that the Claimant was not afforded the protection. The employment judge concluded that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded instead that the employment tribunal was wrong to strike out the claim holding that the employment judge was wrong in seeking a particular form or degree of association for the purpose of associative victimisation. Instead, the EAT confirmed that ‘what matters is whether the treatment of the Claimant was by reason of his association with another who made protected acts’. This would be a question of fact for an employment tribunal.

The People Alchemist Blog

By The Alchemist About Town 01 Jan, 2018
Je vous souhaite une bonne et heureuse année 2018
Tanti Auguri di Felice Anno Nuovo 2018
Wishing you all a very happy, healthy and lucky 2018

#SmashYourCeiling

Laura xxx
By The Alchemist About Town 31 Dec, 2017
Let's welcome the New Year together...
A year full of joy, happiness, health and wealth  - Believe in Yourself, You Can #SmashYourCeiling

Cheers xxx
More Posts
Share by: