Ms R White, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020

The tribunal found that the claimant had the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. It upheld harassment allegations 2, 4 to 11, and 13 to 24 of the harassment schedule, finding that they formed part of a continuing course of harassment and that it was just and equitable to deem them in time. It also upheld direct discrimination allegations 1(a) and (c) in the gender reassignment schedule and extended time so those allegations could proceed.

The tribunal found that allegation 1 of the direct discrimination schedule, which it said was more properly harassment as allegation 3 of the harassment schedule, was well-founded but out of time, and there was no jurisdiction to hear it. It upheld the victimisation complaint based on the respondent's failure to permit the claimant to retract her resignation. The tribunal also said the respondent's statutory defence to the upheld allegations failed and was totally without merit.

The tribunal found that the claimant had been constructively unfairly dismissed. It dismissed the remaining allegations. No final remedy figure was recorded in this judgment because the matter was listed to reconvene on 2 October 2020. The tribunal said it was minded to consider aggravated damages because of the way the claimant was treated and the respondent's stance in defending the case, to consider recommendations to alleviate injury to feelings, and to apply a 20% uplift for failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice in relation to the claimant's grievance about short term measures to assist transitioning. The claimant was to send proposed recommendations and details of any application by 22 September 2020.