Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr J Logo v Payone Gmbh and others depicts a utopia of white blond people who are “pure” is obviously related to race. It was perverse of the majority of the Employment Tribunal to find otherwise. It is not surprising that the claimant drew a parallel with Nazi ideology where a utopia is shown as inhabited by toned white people who are “pure”. If one askes the question what comes to mind if you think of a proposed utopia inhabited only by healthy toned white people who are “pure”, an obvious answer is the offensive concept of racial purity advocated by eugenicists such as the Nazis. It is equally obvious that the advert is not intended to support such ideology but to debunk any suggestion that pure blonde beer is only for pure blond people, which is potentially relevant as to whether the conduct should be treated as having the effect of violating dignity. I have concluded that the only rational decision was that the conduct about which the claimant complained was related to race. 51. In analysing the effect of the conduct the Employment Tribunal was required to take account of the perception of the claimant, the other circumstances of the case and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have the effect of violating dignity. These are all factors that section 26 EQA states that the Employment Tribunal must take account of. The Employment Tribunal focussed on Mr Schrader’s perception of the video being humorous and that he did not intend to offend (which was relevant to the “purpose” question) rather than on the perception of the claimant (which it was required to take account of as part of the “effect” question). The Employment Tribunal failed to take into account how the claimant felt as a Black person having the video sent to him and his immediate colleagues without any explanation. The majority went further and not only failed to assess how being sent the video by Mr Schrader made the claimant feel but suggested it was “offensive for the claimant to have assumed that it was deliberate rather than thoughtless”. I can see no proper basis for that assessment. The minority stated that they accepted that Mr Schrader “did not see any possibility of causing offense”. But that its not the test. The Employment Tribunal insufficiently took account of the circumstances of the case including to whom the video was circulated and the lack of any explanation for it. Circulating an advert that showed a utopia that was inhabited only by “pure” white blond people did not have to be “derogatory towards black © EAT 2025 Page 24 [2025] EAT 95