Mr R Downey (counsel) For the v Mrs B Watkins (solicitor) — 2022

Miss Sutherland worked for Watkins Solicitors in the conveyancing department from 17 July 2018. The tribunal heard claims of constructive unfair dismissal, direct discrimination on race and sex, harassment and victimisation arising from the conduct of Mrs Dunlop and Mr Bridge. It accepted some of the claimant's account, rejected other parts, and treated the case as turning on whether the proven incidents were linked to race or sex and whether they amounted, cumulatively, to a fundamental breach of contract.

The only successful Equality Act complaint was harassment arising from Mr Bridge's February 2019 comment about the claimant's grandmother's Chinese heritage and chip shop. The tribunal accepted that the comment was offensive, embarrassing and unwanted, held that it was related to race, and found the respondent had not shown that it had taken all reasonably practicable steps to prevent it. Although the claim was presented about 21 months later, time was extended just and equitably because the incident was admitted, there was limited prejudice, the claimant had been treated for depression while employed, and she had not appreciated she could bring proceedings earlier.

The tribunal dismissed the direct race and sex discrimination claims. It rejected the claimant's comparators and accepted the respondent's explanations for the May 2019 reprimand, the 18 December 2019 absence email, the 8 January 2020 file-closing instruction, the furlough decision in March 2020, the 18 June 2020 query about file opening, and the related management decisions. It found no primary facts from which less favourable treatment because of race or sex could be inferred, and it reached the same conclusion on victimisation because it was not satisfied that those acts were done because the claimant had complained about Mr Bridge.

The tribunal also dismissed the grievance-based complaint relied on for constructive dismissal. It found that the claimant knew Ms Shufflebottom was on leave, that she had not objected to the grievance being investigated on her return, and that the delay to 24 July 2020 did not amount to conduct without reasonable and proper cause. The later grievance outcome was not part of the resignation decision because the claimant resigned before it was issued.

On constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the incidents, including the May 2019 shouting, the handling of the Mr Bridge complaint, the January 2020 email wording, and the grievance delay, were isolated or amounted to errors of judgment rather than a cumulative repudiatory breach. Applying the Western Excavating, Malik, Omilaju and Buckland line of authority, it concluded that the respondent had not destroyed or seriously damaged trust and confidence and that the claimant's return to work after furlough affirmed any breach. It therefore dismissed constructive unfair dismissal and recorded an award only for the successful harassment claim: £8,500 for injury to feelings plus £991.50 interest, making £9,491.50 in total.