In a recent tribunal, a former Rosenblatt partner’s claims of race discrimination and protected disclosure were dismissed.
- Employment Judge Emma Burns found Noel Deans’ allegations against the firm and senior staff to be unsubstantiated.
- The tribunal noted Mr Deans often reacted to criticism by making unfounded claims against colleagues.
- A specific past incident at a dinner involving a racial slur was judged as offensive but not directly affecting Mr Deans.
- The tribunal concluded Mr Deans’ claims were partly motivated by personal grievance rather than genuine public interest concerns.
In a comprehensive judgment, Employment Judge Emma Burns dismissed claims of race discrimination and protected disclosure brought by Noel Deans, a former partner at Rosenblatt. Judge Burns criticised Mr Deans for presenting “serious, yet unsubstantiated” accusations during the hearing, often attacking colleagues as a defensive reaction to criticism. A notable example of this pattern was his claim that the firm fabricated a witness statement for a trial bundle, a statement deemed without foundation.
Mr Deans, who represented himself, accused the firm and several senior members, including Ian Rosenblatt and Nicola Foulston, of racial discrimination and other grievances. However, the tribunal found no evidence to support these allegations, particularly highlighting a past incident in 2018 where Ms Foulston used an offensive phrase at a dinner. Though the tribunal acknowledged the language as fleetingly offensive, the complaint was rejected as it was not filed within the appropriate time frame.
Further examination showed that Mr Deans’ claims concerning his inability to fulfil professional duties due to a disclosure process change lacked merit. The tribunal substantiated that a rational explanation was provided to Mr Deans regarding the need for redaction in disclosed materials, which he had chosen not to accept. Consequently, the tribunal concluded that Mr Deans did not genuinely believe in the suppression of evidence, noting his personal dissatisfaction seemed to drive his claims rather than public interest.
The tribunal also explored Mr Deans’ behaviour post-resignation, specifically an antisemitic confrontation with Mr Rosenblatt. Despite Mr Rosenblatt’s heated response in calling Deans a “fucking antisemite,” the tribunal did not find that Deans had been penalised due to his race. Instead, it upheld that Mr Rosenblatt’s reaction was protected under the Equality Act, allowing employees to express genuine concerns of racism without it being considered detrimental.
Mr Deans frequently received robust criticism from colleagues, which the tribunal noted was not racially motivated, as similar criticisms were made towards others irrespective of background. Although some remarks may have carried stereotypes, the tribunal judged them as not baseless at the time of delivery. This consistent criticism further weakened Mr Deans’ argument of victimisation and racial harassment.
Ultimately, the tribunal found Mr Deans’ claims largely unsubstantiated and driven by personal motives rather than legitimate grievances.
