In Person v Respondent — 2024

The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint. It found that the respondent had shown misconduct as the reason for dismissal: the claimant had received a first written warning for a backlog of timesheets and was then disciplined for a June 2022 email to her line manager copied to a colleague. The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the dismissing officer had pre-made her decision or had been instructed to dismiss, and found that the respondent's disciplinary policy permitted warnings to be accumulated. It held that dismissal was harsh but within the range of reasonable responses, and that the appeal decision was not pre-made.

The direct race discrimination claim succeeded in part. The tribunal found that parts of the respondent's treatment of the claimant were because of race, including an insincere welfare check, removal or reduction of work, the handling of KPI reporting and performance review, restrictions on access compared with Rosi Waite, the 235-project task, detailed timesheet scrutiny, timesheet chasing, the attempt to move the claimant into an HEC role, and the failure to return Facebook administration work. It also found that Mr Melia and Mr Kelly preferred Rosi Waite, a white contractor, over the claimant, a black employee, in the relevant respects. Other race allegations, including aspects concerning the IACCM course, team chats, the business analyst opportunity, personal email and calendar issues, the disciplinary warning and the dismissal itself, were dismissed.

The harassment related to race claim also succeeded in part. The tribunal upheld allegations concerning the comment relayed to the claimant about what she was smoking, which it found related to a stereotypical view of a black person with dreadlocks smoking drugs; the attempt to blame the claimant and another black employee for errors; the email copied to the team about short-notice annual leave; the 10 July 2020 meeting being changed into a performance management meeting and followed by an email containing an untruth; and Mark Kelly's comment on a virtual call referring to diverse people returning to work and taking their rights. The tribunal dismissed the remaining harassment allegations.

The victimisation claim succeeded on two detriments. The tribunal found that the claimant's 17 September 2021 grievance and first tribunal claim were protected acts, but her June 2022 email to Mr Melia was not because the allegation in that email was made in bad faith. It upheld the victimisation allegations that the claimant was not given back the Facebook administration after returning from maternity leave and that she did not have the opportunity to agree goals with her manager. It dismissed the other alleged detriments, including the fraud investigation, role review complaints, holiday approval issue, timesheet disciplinary process, informal counselling invitation and dismissal.