All posts tagged Mr Chagger

Abbey Santander Group Demonstrates Appeal Stages And Court Structure In Employment Disputes

By blogger on

The appeal stages and court structure in employment disputes in the UK is demonstrated by the high-profile Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006) legal case, where the Employment Tribunal found race discrimination and made the record breaking 2.8 million compensation award. Abbey National Santander Abbey (the UK high street bank soon to be re-branded as Santander share, and being part of the Banco Santander Group) ended Balbinder Chagger’s employment in 2006, giving redundancy as the reason. However, Mr Chagger believed the real reason behind his dismissal was race discrimination. Mr Chagger (of Indian origin) was employed as a Trading Risk Controller. He earned around 100,000 a year and reported into Nigel Hopkins, his manager.

If an employee has suffered unfairness and/or discrimination in employment then he could decide to appeal. The first point of appeal may be to the employer, in the form of a formal grievance. The employee lodges the formal grievance with the employer. The employer is responsible for hearing the grievance and deciding its outcome. The employer is, thus, given the opportunity to deal with the employment dispute and to close it satisfactorily. However, Mr Chagger’s issues were simply dismissed out of hand by the Banco Santander Group company.

If the parties cannot resolve their employment dispute between themselves, then either party may appeal to an Employment Tribunal for an independent resolution of the dispute. Employment Tribunals will hear disputes concerning unfair dismissal, redundancy payments and discrimination. Mr Chagger eventually appealed to the Employment Tribunal by starting legal proceedings against both Santander Abbey National and Mr Hopkins on the grounds of race discrimination and unfair dismissal. The Employment Tribunal heard the case and concluded that Mr Chagger had been both dismissed unfairly and discriminated against on the grounds of race in respect of his dismissal, by both Mr Hopkins and Santander Abbey National. The Employment Tribunal took the rare step of ordering Abbey Santander to reinstate Mr Chagger in order to remedy the wrong of race discrimination it had committed. Santander Abbey National, however, refused to comply with the Employment Tribunal’s reinstatement order. Following Santander Abbey National’s failure to comply, the Employment Tribunal subsequently ordered Abbey Santander to pay Mr Chagger the record breaking 2.8 million compensation for his loss on the basis that he had not been reinstated.

The employee/employer that is dissatisfied with the Employment Tribunal’s decisions may appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The EAT will consider appeals against decisions made by Employment Tribunals. The grounds of appeal must be points of law (i.e., the appeal must be about errors in the legal reasoning of the Employment Tribunal’s decision). The EAT will not reconsider issues of fact. Santander Abbey National and Mr Hopkins appealed to the EAT against the Employment Tribunal’s decision of race discrimination and against the award of 2.8 million compensation. The EAT heard Abbey Santander’s appeals. It decided to uphold the original Employment Tribunal’s finding that Mr Hopkins and Santander Abbey National had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in respect of his dismissal. However, it accepted Abbey Santander’s appeal on the record breaking 2.8 million compensation award and remitted the compensation matter to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration on the basis of the likelihood of Mr Chagger leaving Santander Abbey National’s employment in any case.

The party that is dissatisfied with the EAT’s decisions may appeal to the Court of Appeal, being the second highest court in the land. The Court of Appeal will consider appeals against decisions made by the EAT. Once again, the grounds of the appeal must be points of law (i.e., the appeal must be about errors in the legal reasoning of the EAT’s decision). The Court of Appeal will not reconsider issues of fact either. The Santander Abbey National case was appealed to the Court of Appeal; the Court of Appeal’s website showed the case was heard this month, on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court of Appeal’s records concerning the hearing were not available at the time of writing this article. According to 11KBW set of chambers, the hearing was limited to the issue of compensation only (i.e., not to the matter of race discrimination also). That would suggest that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Santander Abbey National and Mr Hopkins seems to have been finalised by the EAT, which upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s finding that Mr Hopkins and Abbey Santander had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in his dismissal.

The party that is dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s decisions may appeal to the House of Lords, being the highest court in the land. Any appeal to the House of Lords requires the Court of Appeal’s approval and the Court of Appeal must also certify a question of general public importance that the House of Lords needs to decide upon. Again, appeals to the House of Lords must be about points of law and not about issues of fact. The House of Lords is the final stage of appeal for most legal cases in the UK. However, rare cases may be permitted for appeal to the European Court of Justice, which has jurisdiction on matters of European Community law.

Abbey Santander Illustrates Unfair Dismissal Remedy (reinstatement)

By blogger on

Reinstatement, being the re-employment of the employee back into the role he was unfairly dismissed from (as though the dismissal had never occurred), is one possible remedy in the UK for unfair dismissal. In the high-profile case Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006), the Employment Tribunal found that Mr Chagger had been unfairly dismissed, and that both Santander Abbey National (the Spanish-owned UK bank due to be re-branded as Santander, and being part of the Banco Santander Group) and Mr Hopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in respect of his dismissal. The Employment Tribunal took the rare step of ordering Abbey Santander to reinstate Mr Chagger in order to remedy its wrongdoing. Santander Abbey National, however, refused to comply with the Employment Tribunal’s reinstatement order. Following Abbey Santander’s refusal and failure to comply with the reinstatement order, the Employment Tribunal subsequently ordered Abbey Santander to pay Mr Chagger the record breaking 2.8 million compensation for his loss on the basis that he had not been reinstated. Santander Abbey National had terminated Balbinder Chagger’s employment in 2006, giving redundancy as the reason. He was employed as a Trading Risk Controller, earned about 100,000 per year, reported into Nigel Hopkins and was of Indian origin.

UK law views reinstatement of the unfairly dismissed employee as the primary remedy for unfair dismissal; reinstatement of the employee permits him to continue to enjoy the economic benefits of the role in the future and also restores the mental satisfaction that he enjoyed from his role. If reinstatement of the employee is not practicable, UK law then usually views reengagement as the next best remedy. Reengagement is re-employment of the employee into a different role to the one he was unfairly dismissed from (on terms and conditions as close as is reasonably practicable to those he was unfairly dismissed from).

After an Employment Tribunal makes a finding of unfair dismissal, it must ask the unfairly dismissed employee whether or not he wishes to be reinstated or reengaged. If the employee wishes to be reinstated or reengaged, then the Employment Tribunal has complete discretion as to whether or not to issue a reinstatement order or reengagement order. The Employment Tribunal will consider whether it is practicable for the unfairly dismissed employee to return to work for the employer and, where the unfairly dismissed employee was partly to blame for the dismissal, whether or not it would be just and equitable to issue such a reinstatement order or reengagement order.

Although they are the primary remedies, Employment Tribunals rarely ever order reinstatement or reengagement though. That’s because the reality of the process of litigation is that its vexatious nature often leaves the relationship between the employer and the unfairly dismissed employee beyond repair such that it is no longer possible for them to work together anymore; only in rare cases do Employment Tribunals decide that the relationship remains workable.

When an Employment Tribunal orders reinstatement or reengagement, then it is open for the employer to refuse to re-employ the unfairly dismissed employee. Unless the employer satisfies the Employment Tribunal that it was not practicable to comply with the reinstatement order or reengagement order, then the employer’s refusal to comply with the Tribunal’s wishes will give rise to increased compensation for the unfairly dismissed employee. If the Tribunal is dissatisfied with the employer’s reasons for refusing to comply with its wishes, then the employer will have failed to comply with what the law views as the best solution to rectify the wrong committed; then the Employment Tribunal will proceed to consider and award compensation as the next best remedy to address the employer’s wrongdoing.

Requesting reinstatement and/or reengagement may prove to be tactically useful for an unfairly dismissed employee because the employer’s failure to comply entitles him to be compensated in full for all his loss of earnings from the date of the unfair dismissal to the date of the reinstatement/reengagement order; the statutory limit (or cap) on the compensation amount does not apply. So, if the unfairly dismissed employee’s losses to the date of the hearing exceed the statutory limit, then reinstatement/reengagement should be seriously considered. Furthermore, employers generally dislike re-employing an unfairly dismissed employee so much that a credible application for re-employment could lead to higher offers of settlement from the employer. If the employer complies with the order of reinstatement/reengagement, then the employee will be expected to comply too.

The Chagger case did not end at the Employment Tribunal stage, however. The case was subsequently escalated to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), and recently had escalated to the second highest court in UK, the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal’s website showed the case was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court of Appeal’s records of the case were not available at the time of writing this article. However, the King’s Bench Walk set of barristers’ chambers reported (through their website) that the hearing was limited to the issue of compensation only (not race discrimination also). That suggests that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Santander Abbey National and Mr Hopkins seemed to have been finalised by the EAT, which upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s judgement that Mr Hopkins and Abbey Santander had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in his dismissal.

Grievance Letter And Court Structure Illustrated By Emilio Botin Grupo Santander Banking

By blogger on

UK employment disputes grievances and court structure is illustrated by the high-profile Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006) legal case, where the Tribunal made a finding of racial discrimination which led to the record 2.8 million compensation award. Abbey Santander banking group (the UK retail bank due to be re-branded as Santander price, and being part of the gigantic Emilio Botin Banco Santander Central Hispano Group, BSCH) terminated Balbinder Chagger’s employment in 2006, asserting compulsory redundancy as the reason. Mr Chagger, on the other hand, believed the true reason behind his dismissal was racial discrimination. Mr Chagger was of Indian origin and worked as a Trading Risk Controller for Santander 2009. He earned about 100,000 per annum and reported into Nigel Hopkins.

An employee who has suffered employment related unfairness and/or discrimination could decide to make an appeal. The initial place of appeal would be to the employer, in the form of a formal grievance. The employee lodges a formal grievance letter with the employer, and the employer is responsible for processing the grievance and deciding the outcome. Thus, the employer is given the first the opportunity to handle the employment dispute and to close it satisfactorily. Mr Chagger’s grievances and issues, however, were simply dismissed out of hand by Emilio Botin Abbey Santander share price.

If the employee and the employer are unable to resolve their employment dispute by themselves, then the employee may appeal to an Employment Tribunal for an objective resolution. UK Employment Tribunals will hear matters about redundancy payments, unfair dismissal and discrimination. Mr Chagger took his matter to the Employment Tribunal by initiating legal action against both Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins, on the grounds of unfair dismissal and racial discrimination. The Employment Tribunal considered the evidence and ruled that Mr Chagger had in fact been both dismissed unfairly and racially discriminated against by both Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins. In order to remedy the wrong of race discrimination Santander Abbey had committed, the Employment Tribunal ordered the company to reinstate Mr Chagger. However, Santander Abbey refused to comply with the Employment Tribunal’s reinstatement order. The Employment Tribunal then ordered Abbey Santander to pay Mr Chagger 2.8 million compensation for his loss, as an alternative to reinstatement.

The party that is dissatisfied with the Employment Tribunal’s ruling may appeal to the next higher-level court, being the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The EAT will look into appeals against rulings made by the Employment Tribunals. The appeals must only be about points of law (i.e., an appeal must only be about mistakes in legal reasoning by the Employment Tribunal). The EAT will not look into matters about facts of the case. In 2008, Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins appealed to the EAT against the Employment Tribunal’s ruling of racial discrimination and against the record-breaking 2.8 million compensation awarded. The EAT considered the appeals. It upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s ruling that Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger in respect of his dismissal. However, it accepted Santander Abbey’s appeal concerning the 2.8 million compensation award and decided to send back the compensation amount to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.

The party that is dissatisfied with the ruling of the EAT may make an appeal to the next higher-level court, the Court of Appeal (the second highest court in the land). The Court of Appeal will look into appeals against rulings made by the EAT. As before, the appeals must only be about points of law (i.e., an appeal must only be about mistakes in legal reasoning by the EAT). The Court of Appeal will not look into matters about facts of the case. In 2009, the Chagger v Santander Abbey case was appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal’s List of Hearings showed that the case was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court of Appeal’s records concerning the outcome of the hearing were not available at the time of writing this article. The 11KBW set of barristers’ chambers (who represented Santander Abbey and Mr Hopkins), had reported that the hearing was to be only about quantum (i.e., compensation) and not liability also (i.e., not racial discrimination also). That would appear to suggest that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins was finalised by the EAT (it upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s finding that Mr Hopkins and Santander Abbey had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger), and that Mr Chagger had appealed against the EAT’s ruling to send back the compensation amount back to the Employment Tribunal stage for reconsideration.

The party that is dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court of Appeal may appeal to the next higher-level court, the House of Lords. Appeals to the House of Lords require the Court of Appeal’s approval. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal must require the House of Lords to decide upon a question of general public importance. As previously, appeals to the House of Lords must only concern points of law and not be about facts of the case. The House of Lords is the highest court in the land and the final stage of appeal for most legal cases in the UK. Occasionally, cases may be approved for appeal to the European Court of Justice, which has jurisdiction on matters of European Community law.

Ethical Behaviour Risk Factors Lessons From Emilio Botin Abbey Santander 2009

By blogger on

Some of the factors that increase the risk of unethical behaviour in organisations are illustrated by the high-profile legal case Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006), in which the Employment Tribunal made a finding of unlawful racial discrimination and (further to Emilio Botin Abbey Santander banking group’s refusal to comply with the Tribunal’s order to reinstate Mr Chagger) ordered Abbey Banco Santander share to pay Mr Chagger the record-breaking 2.8 million compensation for his loss. Abbey Santander share price (the UK bank soon to be re-branded as Santander banking group, and part of the global Emilio Botin Banco Santander Central Hispano Group – BSCH) dismissed Mr Chagger from his employment in 2006, giving a fair redundancy as the reason. However, Mr Chagger believed that the actual reason behind the termination of his employment was unfairness and race discrimination. Mr Chagger was of Indian origin. He worked for Emilio Botin Abbey Santander finance as a Trading Risk Controller, earning about 100,000 a year, and reporting into Nigel Hopkins.

Some ethical behaviour risk factors illustrated by Emilio Botin Abbey Santander 2009 clearly relate to the pursuit of personal goals; the Employment Tribunal found that Mr Hopkins personally desired Mr Chagger’s employment with Abbey Santander share price to be terminated, had pre-planned that Mr Chagger would be dismissed, and had used the compulsory redundancy process as a means to dismiss Mr Chagger, in an unfair and discriminatory manner.

One such factor increasing the risk of unethical behaviour is the amount of discretion an organisation allows its officers; the greater the discretion allowed, the greater the opportunity the officer has for acting in his personal interests. The Employment Tribunal found that the redundancy selection criteria Abbey Santander had permitted Mr Hopkins to apply in assessing and judging the two employees up for redundancy were highly subjective and un-measurable; they afforded Mr Hopkins a very wide discretion. The Employment Tribunal criticised Mr Hopkins for the way in which he had applied that discretion (i.e., for his own interests). As an example, Mr Hopkins had criticised and scored Mr Chagger lower for getting on with work and being self-reliant. The Employment Tribunal thought that other reasonable managers would consider such qualities to be valuable assets, considering Mr Chagger’s highly paid and highly responsible job, and praise and score him highly for. As a further example, during the redundancy process, Mr Hopkins had criticised Mr Chagger on numerous points that Mr Chagger had never been criticised for prior to the redundancy exercise. All the criticisms were inconsistent with previous company records of Mr Chagger’s performance. The Employment Tribunal ruled that the criticisms were unfair not legitimate.

Another such factor increasing the risk of unethical behaviour is the level of autonomy of decision-making and action an organisation allows its officers; the greater the level of autonomy, the greater the opportunity the officer has for acting in his personal interests. The Tribunal found that Mr Hopkins was entirely single-handedly able to advise Abbey’s management to dismiss one of the two Trading Risk Controllers that he managed (of which Mr Chagger was one), was entirely single-handedly able to make Mr Chagger an offer of voluntary redundancy (Mr Chagger refused the offer, and never was an equivalent offer ever made to the other Trading Risk Controller), was entirely single-handedly able to judge and score the two employees up for redundancy, and was entirely single-handedly able to lower Mr Chagger’s redundancy scores to guarantee that he would be the one who would be selected for dismissal.

A different type of factor also increasing the risk of unethical behaviour is the organisation’s focus; a focus on results rather than processes can imply that the ends justify the means. The UK statutory Code of Practice on Racial Policy in Employment provides organisations with guidance concerning good practices and processes. The Employment Tribunal found that Abbey Banco Santander had failed to comply with those processes. Abbey Grupo Santander had failed to comply with the statutory guidance regarding Equal Opportunity training. Mr Chagger had tried to resolve the issues of unfairness and race discrimination around his dismissal directly with Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins, through the company’s grievance procedures. Santander Abbey had not provided any Equal Opportunity training to any of the managers it had assigned to decide on Mr Chagger’s issues. Not even one manager upheld Mr Chagger’s issues; his issues were simply dismissed out of hand. Emilio Botin Abbey Santander banking group had also failed to comply with the statutory guidance concerning monitoring procedures. The Tribunal found a multitude of monitoring failures (far too many to outline here), as well as the failures to give serious consideration to allegations of racial discrimination and to investigate them promptly.

In 2008, Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) against the original Employment Tribunal’s ruling of racial discrimination; the EAT upheld the original Tribunal’s ruling that both Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger. Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had also appealed against the record-breaking 2.8 million compensation award; the EAT accepted Abbey Santander’s appeal on the compensation award and remitted it to the original Tribunal for reconsideration. In 2009, matters were escalated to the Court of Appeal (the second highest court in the UK). The Court’s List of Hearings showed that the case was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court’s records of the hearing were not available at the time of writing this article. The 11KBW set of barristers’ chambers, who represented Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins, had reported prior to the hearing that the it was to be about quantum only (i.e., compensation) and not about liability (i.e., not about the wrong committed of race discrimination). That would seem to suggest that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Nigel Hopkins was finalised by the EAT when it upheld that Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger, and that Mr Chagger had appealed against the EAT’s ruling to send the compensation award back to the Employment Tribunal stage for reconsideration.

Employment Grievance Procedure Illustrated With Chagger V Emilio Botin Abbey Banco Santander Group

By blogger on

An employment grievance is an issue, complaint or concern over employment rights that the employee brings to the attention of his employer. The grievance may be about such things as employment terms and conditions, health and safety, equal opportunities, organisational change, work relations, working environment, bullying and harassment, and new working practices.

The UK employment grievance procedure is illustrated here with the high-profile Court of Appeal employment race discrimination case Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2009), in which an Employment Tribunal made findings of breach of contract, unfair dismissal and race discrimination, and ordered Emilio Botin Abbey Grupo Santander share price to pay Mr Chagger the record-breaking financial compensation of 2.8 million to cover his loss (Emilio Botin Abbey Santander banking group had refused to reinstate Mr Chagger as ordered by the Employment Tribunal).

Abbey Banco Santander share (the UK high-street bank being re-branded as Santander shares price, and being part of the international Banco Santander Central Hispano Group) dismissed Balbinder Chagger from his Trading Risk Controller position in 2006. Abbey Santander banking claimed the dismissal was the result of a fairly conducted redundancy exercise. Mr Chagger, on the other hand, alleged that his removal was motivated by unfairness and race discrimination. He was of Indian origin, earned about 100,000 per annum and reported into Nigel Hopkins.

There are many benefits in resolving a grievance through informal channels and, wherever possible, the employee should try to achieve this first. Failing that, a formal grievance procedure may be pursued. The procedure is meant to process the grievance with fairness, consistency and speed.

The employee initiates the formal grievance procedure by informing the employer in writing of the grounds of his grievance. The procedure then requires the employer to invite the aggrieved employee to a grievance-hearing meeting to hear the grievance. The grievance hearing must be held within a reasonable time from the date the grievance was raised, usually within 2 weeks. The employee usually has the right to be accompanied to the hearing. At the grievance hearing, the employee explains his grievance and how he would like to see it resolved. The employer is ultimately responsible for deciding how to resolve the grievance. The grievance procedure gives the employer an opportunity to handle the grievance and to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. Once the employer has decided how to resolve the grievance, the employer must notify the employee of the decision in writing, explaining that the decision may be appealed.

If the employee is dissatisfied with the employer’s handling of the grievance and wishes to pursue the grievance further formally, then he may appeal against the employer’s decision. The employee appeals by informing the employer in writing of the grounds of his appeal. The employee normally needs to raise his appeal within 5 days from the grievance outcome. The employer must then invite the employee to an appeal-hearing meeting to hear the appeal. The appeal hearing must be held with a reasonable time from the date the appeal was raised, usually within 2 weeks. The employee usually has the right to be accompanied to the hearing. At the appeal hearing, the employee explains his appeal and how he would like to see it resolved. The employer is ultimately responsible for deciding how to resolve the appeal. The grievance procedure gives the employer another opportunity to handle the grievance and to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. Once the employer has decided how to resolve the appeal, the employer must notify the employee of the decision in writing, explaining that the decision is final and may not be appealed, and that the grievance procedure has been completed and ended.

If at the end of the employer’s handling of the grievance the employee remains dissatisfied with the outcome, then the employee may escalate the his issues to an Employment Tribunal for an independent adjudication. The system of Employment Tribunal is the final channel available to an employee to determine whether or not the employer has acted appropriately. Employment Tribunals will hear disputes regarding unfair dismissal, equal opportunities, discrimination and redundancy payments.

In 2006, Mr Chagger escalated his issues to the Employment Tribunal, alleging unfair dismissal, race discrimination and breach of contract. The Employment Tribunal ruled that Mr Chagger had in fact suffered unfairness and race discrimination from Santander Abbey and from Mr Hopkins, as well as suffering breach of contract from Abbey Santander share.

The Employment Tribunal noted that Mr Chagger had tried to resolve the issues surrounding his dismissal through Abbey Santander’s grievance and appeals procedures. However, the Tribunal found that there was a culture at Santander Abbey of tending to deny and refuse Mr Chagger’s issues, and the issues were simply thrown out of hand by every Abbey Santander officer who had been assigned to decide on them. The Tribunal concluded that Emilio Botin Abbey Santander price had failed to give serious consideration to allegations of racial discrimination and to investigate them promptly.

In 2008, both Abbey Santander banking and Nigel Hopkins appealed against the Employment Tribunal’s ruling of racial discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) rejected their appeal. Thus, the original Employment Tribunal’s ruling that Abbey Grupo Santander share and Nigel Hopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger had been upheld by the EAT. At the same time, Abbey Banco Santander and Mr Hopkins had also appealed against the record 2.8 million compensation awarded. The EAT accepted this appeal and ordered the financial compensation to be sent back to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration on the basis, amongst others, that the Employment Tribunal should have considered whether to reduce the compensation to take account of the chance that Mr Chagger could have been dismissed in any event.

In 2009, Mr Chagger appealed to the UK Court of Appeal against the EAT’s rulings regarding the compensation. The Court of Appeal partly upheld Mr Chagger’s appeal, but upheld the EAT’s ruling that the compensation be sent back to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration on the basis that the Employment Tribunal should have considered whether to reduce the compensation to take account of the chance that Mr Chagger could have been dismissed in any event.

Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Nigel Hopkins did not appeal against the EAT’s ruling on race discrimination; they appear to have conceded they racially discriminated against Mr Chagger.