The WRC dismissed the employee’s complaint, finding no evidence of discrimination, harassment or victimisation, and noting that his AI-generated submissions contained inaccurate and irrelevant material.

The Complainant had worked as cabin crew since January 2023 and alleged that the Respondent discriminated against him on race and family-status grounds in promotion, access to training and general conditions. He had contended that he was harassed and sexually harassed by colleagues, and that he was victimised when he challenged his treatment. He had said the most recent discrimination occurred in July 2024. He linked his treatment to earlier workplace conflicts involving another employee and to disciplinary steps taken against him in 2023/2024, which he had characterised as unfair and discriminatory. He asserted that he was denied training and progression opportunities that others received, and that management failed to protect him from hostile behaviour. Following an appeal of disciplinary sanctions, he had described the outcome as discriminatory and maintained that company processes were applied to him in a biased manner because of his race and family status.

The Complainant maintained that the Respondent’s suggestion the submissions “may have been generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence” was unfounded, unprofessional, and ad hominem (an attempt to divert attention from the merits). They stated what matters were the legal arguments and the truth of the evidence, not the drafting method.

The Respondent denied all allegations and sought a preliminary dismissal as frivolous, vexatious and bound to fail. It had set out two disciplinary matters - a November 2023 investigation into aggression and non-consensual contact (no sanction issued) and a June 2024 incident in which multiple witnesses reported threatening remarks. After investigation and a hearing, a final written warning and a two-week paid suspension issued in August 2024; an appeal in October 2024 had upheld that decision. The Respondent asserted that neither race nor family status featured in decisions; the Complainant never raised a discrimination grievance; and his submissions provided no facts, comparators or causal link to protected grounds. On promotion/training, it said he failed senior-crew courses in 2023 and could not re-enter until performance improved. This was before the June 2024 misconduct intervened. It had highlighted its diverse workforce and cited case law on the s.85A burden.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on either the race or family-status grounds. No suitable comparator or credible factual basis was shown to raise an inference of less favourable treatment under s.85A. The claims of victimisation, harassment and sexual harassment were also not made out where the evidence showed properly conducted investigations and a proportionate disciplinary response to serious misconduct, a payroll error promptly rectified, and no link between protected acts and adverse treatment. The complaint was not well founded.

On the use of AI, the Adjudicator held that the real issue is not the use of AI but the duty to file accurate, relevant submissions that do not mislead the other party or the Adjudication Officer. Here, the Complainant’s papers were laden with irrelevant, misquoted, and in many cases non-existent authorities, causing significant wasted time for both the Respondent and the Adjudication Officer in checking the citations.

Employers should:

• Ensure disciplinary processes are robust and documented. Provide the allegations, disclose evidence, allow representation, and record reasoning at each stage. Where sanctions are imposed, explain the proportionality and alternatives considered. 
  
  
• Train managers on the s.85A burden and the need for contemporaneous notes. Require complainants to particularise allegations and identify comparators where relevant. Separate interpersonal disputes from protected-ground issues.  
  
  
• Control litigation risk by insisting that submissions be accurate and relevant. Where harassment is alleged, act swiftly, preserve evidence, and communicate outcomes sensitively. 
  

The full case can be found here.