YR v Respondent — 2024

The claimant, employed by the respondent from 2012, became project manager for the Enquiries Hub project and later returned to her substantive role. The tribunal found that disputes arose during the project over scope, communications, workstreams and the extent of the claimant's role, particularly in relation to BB and DD. It accepted that the exchanges were often robust, but concluded that this was typical of senior staff debating project direction and not, without more, evidence of unlawful treatment.

On the race discrimination complaints, the tribunal rejected the allegations concerning BB's emails and meetings in January and February 2021, the REAG data shared by CC in April 2021, the Teams workspace issue, the tender process, the May 2021 dignity at work meetings, the September and October 2021 incidents, and the later policy and grievance exchanges. It held that several matters were not made out factually, and that where the events did occur they were not treatment because of race. The tribunal relied heavily on contemporaneous documents and found parts of the claimant's recollection unreliable or inconsistent with the documents.

On disability, the tribunal found that the claimant was disabled at the material times by anxiety and depression, and also by PTSD/work-related stress and neck and arm pain. It nevertheless rejected the direct disability discrimination claim concerning the unsuccessful applications for the Director of Policy and Projects role and the Head of Operations role, the absence of feedback, the October 2022 meetings about her working relationships, and the dismissal. The tribunal found those decisions were driven by the respondent's assessment of criteria, the working relationship breakdown and the redeployment issue, not by disability.

The reasonable adjustments claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had complained about working with BB, CC and DD, lack of mediation, redeployment, attendance at campus meetings, and workstation issues including a chair and desk. It found that some of the alleged PCPs did not exist, that others did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, and that mediation would not have been a reasonable step once relationships had broken down. On the workstation complaint, it found that the respondent offered a different chair and that the claimant did not want that chair.

The dismissal was found to be for some other substantial reason, namely an irretrievable breakdown in working relationships between the claimant and a number of colleagues. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had commissioned external review work, considered mediation, change of line management and redeployment, and then decided that termination was the only viable outcome. It held that the process was fair, the appeal was detailed and thorough, and the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses. The sex discrimination claim also failed because the tribunal found a male comparator would have been treated the same way.