City firm Rosenblatt and its former chief executive are among the defendants in a race discrimination claim brought by a solicitor former employee, it emerged this week.

Noel Deans, who was head of employment at Rosenblatt until February 2020, has also brought complaints of unfair dismissal, victimisation, harassment and failure to provide a safe place to work.

The details of the claim were revealed in a judgment published this week by the employment tribunal following an open preliminary hearing last month. RBL Law Limited, owned by the listed entity RBG Group, is named as a respondent to the claim, along with its former chief executive Nicola Foulston, founder and senior partner Ian Rosenblatt and director and compliance officer Anthony Field.

Foulston was dismissed last week after more than six years for what RBG described as ‘cultural concerns and the execution of the group’s strategy’. There was no suggestion in that announcement that it had anything to do with Deans’ claim.

Few details of the allegations have been revealed, but the ruling does state that respondents admit in their amended grounds of resistance that Foulston used a phrase with a racist word at a dinner in front of Deans, who is black. It is also stated in the judgment that at another point Ian Rosenblatt said he was ‘just a f****** anti-Semite’ and raised a grievance against Deans.

The respondents had applied to strike out the claim because he had ‘not actively pursued’ it and his conduct had been unreasonable.

Employment Judge Brown noted that the period of 28 months during which Deans took no steps to advance his claim amounted to ‘inordinate and inexcusable’ delay. However, this delay was not enough to create a substantial risk to a fair trial and was not likely to cause serious prejudice to the defendants. The judge ruled it would not be proportionate to strike out the claim but refused permission to amend certain parts of it.

The case will proceed to a final hearing, listed for 14 days, this October. The respondents deny the claimant was constructively dismissed and that he was subject to detriments or discrimination; they contend that the claimant’s dismissal was fair for a reason that related to his capability.