In deciding whether an individual claiming EqA victimisation acted in bad faith, the primary question was whether they acted honestly in making the allegation.
The claimant was likely to fail his final assessment to become a Consultant Cardiothoracic Surgeon, and raised a grievance about a racist mark allegedly made some four years previously. He claimed victimisation when he was then not allowed back to work in the Cardiac Surgery.
He believed genuinely (albeit unreasonably) that the racist remarks were made. However he had an ulterior motive in raising the allegation, namely that his final assessment – which he knew would go badly for him – would be postponed.
In Saad v Southampton University Hospital NHS Trust www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2018/0276_17_2208.html the EAT held the false allegation was not made in bad faith, despite the ulterior motive. When determining whether an employee has acted in bad faith for the purposes of victimisation under the Equality Act, the primary question was whether they have acted honestly in giving the evidence or information or in making the allegation.
More: Victimisation>Bad faith.