Case 1401039/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Blajan v Havant and South Downs College — 2021
- Case reference
- 1401039/2020
- Decision date
- 15 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley
- Panel members
- Mr J Evans, Mr M Cronin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Blajan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss D Blajan was employed as a teacher at Havant and South Downs College and resigned on 25 November 2019. She brought claims of constructive unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination and victimisation. The tribunal dismissed the race discrimination and victimisation claims, but upheld the constructive unfair dismissal claim.
On the discrimination claims, the tribunal found that the claimant had not established a prima facie case that any less favourable treatment was because of race or nationality. It rejected the alleged protected act in January 2018 and found that the October 2018 appraisal comments did not provide a sufficient basis for victimisation against Ms Ryan in November 2019. The tribunal accepted that one class was moved to Ms Bland in September 2019 without consultation, and that the meeting with Ms Ryan on 22 November 2019 was difficult and upsetting, but it found no evidence that the treatment was motivated by race.
On constructive dismissal, the tribunal held that Mr Youell's decision to reallocate the class without consulting the claimant, and his failure to rectify the matter, was a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It also found that the 22 November 2019 meeting was a final straw. The claimant resigned three days later in response to those breaches, so there was no affirmation of the contract and the dismissal was constructive and unfair. Remedy was agreed at a £3,675 basic award, £1,327 for one year's loss of earnings and £300 for loss of statutory rights, making £5,302 in total; the tribunal later said no injury to feelings award could be made for unfair dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal upheld. The tribunal found the September 2019 removal of one of the claimant's classes without consultation, and the failure to rectify it, breached the implied term of trust and confidence. It treated the 22 November 2019 meeting with Ms Ryan as a final straw and found the claimant resigned in response three days later. Remedy was £3,675 basic award, £1,327 loss of earnings and £300 loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £5,302 |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination was alleged on the basis of race/nationality, with the claimant describing herself as white Romanian. The tribunal found no prima facie case that the disputed treatment was because of race, although it accepted one less favourable act in September 2019 in relation to class allocation. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal rejected the alleged protected acts in January 2018 and found no evidence that the October 2018 appraisal comments, even if they could amount to a protected act, caused any detriment by Ms Ryan in November 2019. It therefore dismissed the victimisation claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,302
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,675
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,627
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
17 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Mahmud and Malik v BCCI
- Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle
- Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation
- s.98(4)(a) ERA 1996
- s.9 EqA 2010
- s.13 EqA 2010
- s.23 EqA 2010
- s.136 EqA 2010
- Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd
- Igen Ltd and others v Wong
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- s.27 EqA 2010
- Durrani v London Borough of Ealing
- Fullah v Medical Research Council
- Dunnachie v Kingston upon Hull City Council
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.