Favouring one person - is it discrimination? Made redundant as well

[Happypie]

removed as contained identifiable info

[ULA]

What specific legal advise are you looking for?

It seems like you have gone past the ET1 and ET3 stages and without having an understanding of the respondent's defence it would be difficult to say how strong your case is.

Have you been given a Case Management Agenda (CMA) to complete before the Preliminary Hearing (PHR).

Can you explain briefly what the consultation process was?

Have you been able to document dates/time/place of events when you believe you have been discriminated against due to your race?

If so do you have any witnesses to these events who would provide a witness statement (WS).

Those are my questions to start with in order to try and see what support we can give you.

[Happypie]

removed as contained identifiable info

[Happypie]

removed as contained identifiable info

[Happypie]

removed as contained identifiable info

[ULA]

I have merged your threads since they are related to the same issue. It is does not help those of us providing you advice to look at multiple related threads.

Basically the respondent does not believe that you have a genuine claim to bring to the Tribunal. The requirement to pay a deposit would potentially happen if the Judge at the PHR believes that you are arguing a case that has little chance of success but there may still be an argument to be made at a full hearing. At the end of the hearing the depoist is either refunded or offset against any order for costs.

In regard to:

"The respondent has the right to know what case it has to answer. The respondent is also mindful of the overriding objective and the costs involved in pleading to allegations which do not give rise to claims. Accordingly, the respondent reserves its right to seek leave to amend these Grounds of Resistance / plead further upon full, clear particulars being provided by the claimant. In so doing, the respondent reserves its position as to costs, as it does more generally in respect of the substantive nature of the claims"

It means that the respondent does not believe you have set out your claim clearing and with full information and once they have this then they are reserving the ability to be able to amend their Ground of Reistance or Particulars based on the new information. In addition they are also reserving the right to be able to bring a costs order against you which, in the event you lost the claim, would allow them to request the judge to order that you pay your employer's costs for defening the claim.

Hope that makes the situation clearer but if you have any further questions please come back to this thread.

[Happypie]

removed as contained identifiable info

[Happypie]

removed as contained identifiable info

[MIKE770]

Ula may be able to advise

[ULA]

Happypie please can I ask again that you stop creating new threads for your ongoing employment tribunal case. All questions related to your tribunal claim including issues of cost orders need to be maintained on one thread.

[Happypie]

Sorry I am new to forum and didn't know policy here.
usually its good idea to start new thread which is independent so its easy for others to reply (as they don't need to read entire threads) and its useful too if others are in same boat.
But I will respect the rules defined for this forum and add my questions to original post.

[ULA]

I have merged your threads.

[ULA]

Do you know whether at the time of the 1st restructuring the individual you mention was offered the job at a lower level as a suitable alternative job which they decided to take even through there was a salary reduction?

Do you know in the second restructuring and your position as senior developer was at put risk, whether there were any suitable alternative jobs availalbe at a lower level?
As part of the redundancy consultation process did you not ask whether there was the possibility of a position being available at a lower level that you could be considered for?

[Happypie]

removed as contained identifiable info

[Happypie]

removed as contained identifiable info