Case 1305273/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Mafavuke v Home-Start Birmingham North West Heard: by Cloud Video Platform (Midlands West) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1305273/2021
- Decision date
- 10 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
- Panel members
- Ms S Fritz, Mr M Z Khan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Mafavuke
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs B Mafavuke was employed by Home-Start Birmingham North West from 4 January 2021 as a Target Support Worker for BME families, after first volunteering for the charity. The tribunal recorded that the case was not an unfair dismissal case; it was concerned with Equality Act claims arising out of photo publication, baby massage discussions, safeguarding concerns, a laptop enquiry, a probation review document, disciplinary proceedings, later reference checks and correspondence with Home-Start UK.
On the direct race discrimination complaints, the tribunal found that publication of the family photographs and the Claimant's own photograph was not because of race, but was explained by the Respondent's understanding of consent and the WhatsApp exchanges. It found there had never been a baby massage role to withdraw, and that the suspension, investigation and disciplinary hearing were driven by genuine safeguarding concerns arising from the Claimant's records and failure to raise ROCAs. The laptop question, the probation review document with typed signatures, and the supervision complaints were also rejected as race discrimination because the tribunal accepted the Respondent's non-racial explanations and found no less favourable treatment.
The indirect discrimination claim failed because the alleged PCP, that the Respondent dismissed statements from employees whose first language was not English, was not proved to exist. The tribunal found the Claimant was able to conduct the disciplinary hearing, that the one phrase she queried was explained to her, and that there was no evidence of a group disadvantage to Black African people on the case as pleaded. The harassment complaints also failed: although some conduct was accepted as unwanted, including publication of the Claimant's photograph and interruptions during the hearing, the tribunal found no racial connection and no conduct meeting the statutory purpose or effect. The victimisation claim failed because the Claimant did not establish a protected act, and Mr Grigg's later refusal to intervene was found to be based on his view that the local process had not been exhausted.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim dismissed. The tribunal rejected the allegations about publication of photographs, the alleged baby massage promise, suspension, investigation and disciplinary process, the laptop enquiry, the alleged forged signature, and supervision. It found the Respondent's explanations were consent misunderstandings, funding or role-structure issues, safeguarding concerns, or ordinary administrative practice, not race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect race discrimination claim dismissed. The alleged PCP was that the Respondent dismissed statements from employees whose first language was not English without regard to racial barriers. The tribunal found no evidence that such a PCP existed, no proved disadvantage to the Claimant or a relevant comparator group, and no unfairness in the disciplinary hearing, where the one phrase she did not understand was explained. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Race harassment claim dismissed. The tribunal accepted some conduct was unwanted, including publication of the Claimant's photograph and the interruptions at the disciplinary hearing, but held the conduct was not related to race and did not have the statutory purpose or effect. The cheque/shredder allegations and the alleged misrepresentations or dismissive treatment were not made out on the facts. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation claim dismissed. The alleged protected act was the 8 June 2021 complaint about the family's photograph, but the tribunal found the Claimant had not shown that this was a protected act or that the Respondent believed she had done, or might do, a protected act. Later conduct was explained by safeguarding concerns and the Respondent's view that the local process had not been exhausted. |
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Wong v Igen
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- Essop v Home Office / Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Dhaliwal
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- Rowstock Ltd v Jessemey
- Aziz v Trinity Street Taxis Ltd
- Fullah v Medical Research Council / Durrani v London Borough of Ealing
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Bahl v The Law Society
- Anya v University of Oxford
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.