Case 1300690/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss G Krothe v Birmingham Children’s Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 1300690/2021
- Decision date
- 10 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs W Ellis, Mr J Sharma
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss G Krothe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case had previously included a constructive unfair dismissal claim, which had been withdrawn by judgment dated 10 February 2023. The reserved judgment then determined the claimant's direct race discrimination and victimisation complaints arising from her employment as an Integrative Therapist from 2014 to 2020.
On the direct race discrimination complaint, the tribunal reviewed a long series of allegations about timekeeping, working from home, travel time, performance management, supervision, the university placement and the Dignity at Work process. It accepted that the claimant often felt unfairly treated and that communication from management was frequently poor, but it found that most of the respondent's actions were explained by genuine concerns about timekeeping, performance, honesty, funding or the respondent's policies. The tribunal found that only two allegations amounted to less favourable treatment because of race: Mrs Delaney's 12 September 2017 email mocking the claimant's interest in a CASS role, and Dr Sabin's 17 October 2017 email of repeated exclamation marks about the claimant's request to undertake work privately.
Those two acts were found to be direct race discrimination, but the tribunal held that the claim was nevertheless out of time. The claimant only became aware of the emails through her DSAR in around February to May 2020, there was no continuing act, and it was not just and equitable to extend time, particularly as the claim was not brought until March 2021. The direct race discrimination complaint was therefore dismissed.
The victimisation complaint also failed. The tribunal held that the verbal complaints relied on with Mr Brown were about unfair treatment rather than allegations of race discrimination or other Equality Act matters, so they were not protected acts. It also found that the formal Dignity at Work complaint was framed as bullying and other issues rather than race discrimination, and therefore none of the alleged detriments were shown to have been caused by protected acts. No award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment says the original claim form had included constructive unfair dismissal, but that claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by judgment dated 10 February 2023. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Two allegations were found to be acts of race discrimination, namely the 12 September 2017 email about the claimant's interest in the CASS role and the 17 October 2017 exclamation-mark email about private work, but the tribunal held that the race discrimination complaint was brought far out of time and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal held that the conversations relied on with Mr Brown were complaints of unfair treatment, not protected acts alleging race discrimination or another Equality Act contravention, and that the formal DAW complaint was framed as bullying/other rather than race discrimination. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon comparator test
- Ferri v Key Languages comparator
- London Borough of Islington v Ladele reason why test
- Gould v St John's Downshire Hill
- Nagarajan causation test
- Madarassy / Igen burden of proof
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- Waters protected act test
- Durrani / Fullah protected act context
- s.123 Equality Act 2010 time limits
- Commissioner of Police v Hendricks continuing act test
- Barclays v Kapur / Sougrin continuing act
- Robertson just and equitable extension
- Adedeji / Afolabi extension factors
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.