An employment tribunal's impartiality has been questioned in a case involving Sean Corby, a former senior conciliator at Acas (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service). The controversy stems from a discrimination claim filed by Corby against Acas, which was established in 1975 to improve workplace relations.
The tribunal, which included lay member Mohammed Taj, ruled that Acas had not discriminated against Corby when it ordered him to remove posts about Critical Race Theory (CRT) from the organization's internal bulletin. CRT, a concept originating in the 1970s among American legal scholars, argues that racism is embedded in societal structures.
Corby, who has a Jamaican wife and mixed-heritage children, expressed opposition to CRT, stating it divides victims of racism. He cited influences such as Howard Thurman, a key figure in Martin Luther King Jr.'s philosophy of nonviolence, and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, a renowned Nigerian author who has critiqued cancel culture.
The case has raised questions about the balance between workplace diversity discussions and free speech. The Equality Act 2010 protects individuals from discrimination based on protected characteristics, but the interpretation of these protections in the context of ideological debates remains contentious.
"Given that there was no conceivable objectively offensive content to my posts, which were unmistakably anti-racist in nature, the decision to rule in Acas's favour and therefore sanction the behaviour of Zita and her fellow complainants is in my view gravely mistaken."
The controversy deepened when it emerged that Taj had collaborated with Zita Holbourne, one of the Acas staff members who initially complained about Corby's posts. Both Taj and Holbourne have been involved in various political campaigns, including the Black Lives Matter movement, which began in 2013.
Corby argues that this connection constitutes a conflict of interest, potentially compromising the tribunal's impartiality. Employment tribunals, established in 1964, are expected to provide fair hearings in workplace disputes.
The case also touches on the concept of the "heckler's veto," which originated in US free speech law. Corby contends that the tribunal's decision effectively allows others' objections to limit free expression, a right protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
As of September 2024, Corby is appealing the tribunal's ruling and awaiting the result of an unfair dismissal claim against Acas. The case highlights ongoing debates about the boundaries of workplace discussions on sensitive topics and the role of employment tribunals in navigating these complex issues.