Black Security Manager Awarded Over £360K After Facing a Decade of Bullying and Racism

Published : May 23, 2025

In Mr Richard Assan v Vigilant Security (Scotland) Ltd t/a Croma Vigilant, a black security manager has been awarded over £360,000 after succeeding with his victimisation and unfair dismissal claims. The employment tribunal learned how he’d faced racism and workplace bullying for over a decade and was left with no choice but to resign after being confronted with an unfair disciplinary process.

Below, we examine the facts of the case and the judgment of the employment tribunal. If you have been bullied or faced racism at work, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As employment law specialists, we can answer your queries and provide expert advice.

To learn how we can help you today, simply:

The Facts in Mr Richard Assan v Vigilant Security (Scotland) Ltd t/a Croma Vigilant

Black Security Manager Claim Background

Mr Richard Assan (“the Claimant”) is a black man of African descent and birth. He worked for Wilson James Security from March 2007 and was promoted to control room team leader two years later. By 2010, Vigilant Security (Scotland) Ltd t/a Croma Vigilant (“the Respondent”) took over the business and became his employer. He was quickly advanced to site controller before being promoted to security manager in May 2018.

Early Incidents of Race Discrimination at Work

Issues began on 8 March 2011, when a white security guard shouted at the Claimant, “F*ck you and f*ck Vigilant”. A few months later, Mr Bill Cowle, a white chief engineer, called the black security manager his “slave.” This was apparently intended to be a joke, but, unsurprisingly, the Claimant was embarrassed and offended. While he complained and asked for the matter to be dealt with informally and confidentially, no apology subsequently came.

The following month, the Claimant spoke to a tenant employee, highlighting that their car was blocking a gate sensor. While this would appear to be a reasonable request, the employee’s reaction was anything but. Standing close to the Claimant, he made a Nazi salute and shouted “Heil Hitler!”

Then, on 2 July 2012, Mr Guy Rampe, initially the Respondent’s contract manager and later the director of operations, asked the Claimant where he had learned his English. Regardless of his intent, Mr Rampe acknowledged during the proceedings that his question “may have been clumsy.” This was particularly so given the Claimant’s impeccable command of English, which stands in stark contrast to the substandard level of at least two of his white, British-born superiors, whose own efforts were described by the tribunal as “semi-literate.”

Continued Discrimination, Undermining, and Management Conflicts

Problems persisted in March 2015 when Mr X, whose identity remained anonymous, called some Eastern European visitors to the site “stupid foreigners.” A complaint was raised and eventually upheld, resulting in a first and final written warning being handed to Mr X.

Then, when the Claimant originally applied for the security manager role in 2016, his application went unacknowledged. Initially, Mr Greg Binding, a white male, was appointed, but he resigned within a week. The position was then filled by Mr Martin Arscott in June.

After the Claimant eventually became the security manager in 2018, he claimed Mr Arscott subjected him to oppressive management and undermined his position. This allegedly occurred between December 2018 and October 2021.

One such example occurred after an incident on 1 March 2021, when an intruder was apprehended and taken to the security office. The Claimant stated that he was going to call the police, but Mr Arscott advised against doing so.

Unbeknownst to the black security manager, however, Mr Arscott wrote a report on 4 March, stating, “Whilst I understand the decision from [the Claimant and his deputy] to not have contacted the Police, I believe this to have been in my opinion, the incorrect decision…” Taking into account Mr Arscott’s previous instructions, this statement was obviously untruthful.

Black Security Manager Raises Grievance and Faces Backlash

On 11 November, the Claimant raised a grievance connected to racism in the workplace. He was then signed off work with depression for a month shortly after, beginning on 23 November. Because of this, the grievance hearing was postponed, taking place on 18 and 20 January 2022.

The Claimant eventually returned to work on 31 January. However, following an initial return-to-work meeting, he was caught off guard with an investigation meeting. The black security manager hadn’t received notice of the investigation, and when he asked for a union representative to accompany him, he was told “he had no right to such support.”

Soon after, the Claimant became “visibly unwell” and was sent home. Yet, as he was on route, he received a suspension letter informing him of “allegations of potential gross misconduct” against him. Among other things, these included “intentional theft of data” and “contacting clients…to obtain opportunities for a family member.” The letter also outlined that the investigation meeting had been rearranged for 3 February, and that he wasn’t permitted to attend the workplace or contact colleagues without permission.

The investigation, however, went no further. Unfortunately, the damage was done, and the Claimant was again signed off sick on 1 February, after which he never returned.

When the grievance outcome was presented on 7 February, the Claimant learned that while some of his claims were upheld, others were dismissed. Crucially, the central allegations of race discrimination and/or race-related harassment at work weren’t upheld.

As a result, he appealed the decision four days later, but learned that Mr Rampe would be handling his appeal. This was a problem for the Claimant, since some of his complaints were directly against Mr Rampe. Following an investigation, Mr Rampe made a decision similar to the initial grievance outcome, dismissing his central allegations.

Resignation and Initiation of Legal Action

With all internal avenues exhausted, the Claimant felt he had no other choice but to leave. He provided Mr Rampe with his letter of resignation on 6 April, which took immediate effect. He complained of workplace bullying, harassment and discrimination, dating back to 2011, stating that said conduct “had had a catastrophic effect upon his mental health.”

While Mr Rampe asked that he reconsider his decision on 11 April, the Claimant confirmed it eight days later. He explained that he believed the Respondent had “fundamentally breached his contract of employment” and “could no longer tolerate the way in which black employees were treated…”

The black security manager then initiated employment tribunal proceedings on 25 April. His claims comprised direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation, unfair constructive dismissal and unauthorised deductions from wages.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Tribunal’s Findings on Direct Race Discrimination

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal first turned to the claim of direct race discrimination at work. It explained how the Claimant experienced various instances of detriment, including:

  • Having “f*ck you” shouted at him by the white security guard.
  • Being referred to as a “slave” by Mr Cowle.
  • Facing competency questions concerning his English from Mr Rampe.
  • Being offended by Mr X’s “stupid foreigners” comment.
  • Having his 2016 job application ignored.
  • Being advised not to call the police, before Mr Arscott provided an untruthful report.
  • Having Mr Rampe assigned to handle his grievance appeal despite some of the complaints being about him.
  • Facing a “flawed” grievance process with both an unsuccessful grievance and appeal.
  • Receiving a suspension letter and being accused of wrongdoing.

The tribunal then considered whether these detriments arose because of race. It quickly established that the “slave” and “stupid foreigners” comments were evidently about race, as was the question concerning his level of English. It also found that his race was, “at the very least, a material factor” in his 2016 application being ignored. This was because the black security manager had gained “ample experience” and was qualified to the relevant standard, meaning there was no reason for the Respondent to ignore it.

That being said, since the four potential instances of direct race discrimination at work were between five and ten years outside the tribunal’s time limit (three months less one day), they were all dismissed. The tribunal stated, “There is, in our view, no good reason to exercise our discretion to bring these exceedingly stale claims within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction…” It went on to say, “…Doing so would run counter to the core purpose of the 2010 Act…which is to provide swift, practical, accessible and economical justice in employment disputes.”

Harassment and Disability Claims Dismissed, but Victimisation Proven

Following on, the tribunal considered the claim of race-related harassment at work. However, like with discrimination, this claim was dismissed. The majority of the complaints brought by the Claimant didn’t amount to harassment, and for the ones that did, they either didn’t relate to race or were out of time.

The tribunal then looked at the claims of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments, both of which related to the Claimant’s depression. Yet, these claims failed at the first hurdle since the Respondent had no knowledge of the Claimant’s disability.

As a result, these were dismissed, and the tribunal quickly moved on to the claim of victimisation. To begin, it established that the black security manager relied on three protected acts. These included his complaints about Mr Arscott before bringing a formal grievance, the formal grievance itself, and further complaints, including an allegation that a request to return his work mobile amounted to race discrimination.

It then stated that similar detriments were relied upon, including the suspension letter and misconduct investigation, Mr Rampe being assigned to handle the grievance appeal, and the generally “flawed” grievance process. The tribunal considered whether these detriments occurred “because the Claimant had done the protected act?” and found that while the majority of the complaints failed, the conduct surrounding the suspension letter and allegations of misconduct did not.

The tribunal labelled the Respondent’s actions “extraordinary” and “groundless,” and found the timing to be no coincidence. In its opinion, the timing “strongly” suggested that the grievance was the catalyst. Because of this, the victimisation claim succeeded.

Constructive Dismissal Claim Succeeds; Tribunal Awards Over £360,000

Finally, the tribunal considered the claim of constructive unfair dismissal. The black security manager had asserted that the Respondent had “repudiated his contract of employment,” leaving him with no choice but to resign.

In this case, the tribunal agreed. While the other claims had been dismissed, the tribunal believed it had to look no further than the victimisation claim. The actions on 31 January 2022, when the Claimant was subjected to an investigation meeting and faced allegations of potential gross misconduct, breached the employment contract. As a result, the unfair dismissal claim was upheld.

In a separate remedy hearing, the Claimant was awarded £360,705.36. His compensation comprised, among other things, loss of earnings, injury to feelings, and a 17.5% Acas uplift.

Faced Workplace Bullying? Get Help with Redmans

If you have been bullied or experienced racism at work, please contact Redmans Solicitors today. As employment law specialists, we can discuss your circumstances and provide expert advice on your possible next steps.

Racism in the workplace is never acceptable, and if you want legal assistance, we are here to help. To learn how we can help you today, simply:

The information on this page is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.