Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr J Logo v Payone Gmbh and others any black or brown people and associated that with the ideology of Nazis “both historically and in the present day as it pertained to the ‘pure Aryan race’.” The claimant has put in evidence a copy of the cover of a 1938 calendar to illustrate the point … . It was suggested to him in cross-examination that when he implies that such Nazi ideology was being circulated in the workplace and was highly concerned that it was posted by a German colleague in a predominantly German WhatsApp group he was stereotyping because he was eliding being German with being a Nazi. 344. He denied that, saying that was ludicrous. However we do think there is an element here of the claimant eliding being German with being a Nazi. Why else would it be relevant to state that it was posted by a German colleague? What otherwise would be ‘highly concerning’ that some of that nationality placed the post. 345. When accepting that there was no negative depiction of black people in the advert the claimant said “there doesn’t have to be. It’s the omission of black people of ethnic minority people in the advert that sees pure blond and speaks to the Aryan race coming from a German group.” Based on this answer and his statement para.128 we have formed the view that the claimant would have been much less likely to make a connection with the Nazi ideology of the Aryan master race if this advertisement had not been posted by a German. 346. When Mr Schrader was cross examined about it he said that he could not see that someone who was not white could be offended by this advert and if he had thought that he definitely would not have shared it. While not denying that there was a Nazi ideology of the Aryan race of predominantly blonde people, Mr Schrader said it was simply the name of a beer and he had interpreted the message of the advert completely differently but did not see any links to the holocaust or African minorities in the advertisement. 347. The claimant suggested that Mr Schrader did not answer the question about whether he was comfortable showing it to holocaust victim for example, but we consider that he was open and honest in his answers and accept that he would not have posted it if he had thought people would be offended. The claimant said in his evidence that he had already had experience that Mr Schrader had made a comment (see para.270 above), but we have found that to be based on a misunderstanding. We accept his evidence that he considered the advert to be humorous and did not see any potential for offence. [emphasis added] 48. The Employment Tribunal analysed the complaint: 441. The Tribunal is unanimous that this particular allegation of race related harassment fails but there is split reasoning. We all accepted that, as a matter of fact, R2 considered the advert to be humorous. Of course, this does not preclude it also being an act of harassment but we all also accept that he did not see the potential for offence and therefore conclude that his action did not have the purpose of creating the harassing effect. 442. The majority (NLMs Holford and Bhatt) see no connection with race in this post whatever and find that it is straightforwardly about a beer the name of which is Pure Blonde and the video contains blonde people in a pure world as a play on words because it is Pure Blonde beer. NLMs Holford and Bhatt not only accept Mr Schrader’s evidence that he thought it was humorous but do not see any connection with race at all. They consider it offensive for the claimant to © EAT 2025 Page 21 [2025] EAT 95