Case 1301570/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Lalla Sidibeh v Midland Mencap and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1301570/2021
- Decision date
- 19 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Members
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr. I. Morrison, Mrs. L.S. Clark
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Lalla Sidibeh
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a personal assistant for Midland Mencap from 17 July 2019 until her resignation on 22 February 2021. The tribunal accepted that she was racially abused by C1 on 16 September 2019 and was later assaulted by C1 on 2 January 2021, after which emergency services were called, she attended hospital, and the respondent arranged welfare contact and investigation steps. The tribunal found Mr Rogers and others acted on the incident by contacting the claimant, taking reports, and ensuring C1 was reassessed and ultimately removed from the service, while the claimant was later moved to different premises on her return to work.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal accepted that the claimant was assaulted by C1 on 2 January 2021, but found the respondent took the incident seriously, checked on her welfare, investigated the events, and moved her away from C1. It held that the complained-of treatment would have been the same for a hypothetical white comparator and was not because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal accepted the protected acts relied on, namely the 8 February 2021 complaint that she was being mistreated because of the colour of her skin and the 22 February 2021 grievance. It found no detriment because of those acts and held that Ms Weston carried out a reasonable grievance investigation and gave a reasoned outcome on 5 March 2021. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal treated the 8 and 22 February 2021 complaints as protected disclosures, but held that the respondent's conduct did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract and did not cause the resignation. It found the disciplinary process had already been initiated before the 8 February disclosure and that the claimant resigned on 22 February 2021, one day before the rescheduled disciplinary hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
19 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Islington London Borough Council v Ladell
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- Greater Manchester Police v Bailey
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan
- Carozzi v The University of Hertfordshire
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- Beatt v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust
- Norbrook Laboratories GB Ltd v Shaw
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
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.