IN PERSON FOR THE v Respondent — 2018

The claimant started work for DWP at Caerphilly on 13 February 2017 as an Administrative Officer on an 18-month fixed-term contract. She was in a training group of nine trainees; the tribunal found she was the only non-white trainee and the only trainee over 50. It also found that the equality and diversity training given on the course was not meaningful, and that trainees were not given their employment contracts at the outset.

The tribunal accepted a series of incidents involving Daisy Cartwright from the first weeks of training, including the use of the phrase 'Paki Lover', comments about Welsh weather and 'the Claimant's weather report', repeated accusations that the claimant had stolen ice-cream, body spray used next to her, spinning on a chair after she objected, and gestures made to another trainee on 9 March 2017. It accepted that the claimant told Nicola Foley she was upset, felt bullied, and said it was because of her appearance. The tribunal found Ms Foley breached that confidence by speaking to Ms Cartwright and then to the wider group. It also accepted that the claimant's complaints and grievance amounted to protected acts, and held that items 1 and 2 were in time because they formed part of conduct extending over a period, or alternatively because it was just and equitable to extend time.

The tribunal upheld race and age harassment on a continuing course of conduct made up of items 1-5, 7, 12 and 13. It found that Ms Cartwright's conduct related at least in part to the claimant's race and age, and that the course of conduct created a humiliating and hostile environment. The tribunal also upheld direct race and age discrimination in relation to Mr Lewis's public comments on 10 March 2017, including 'I touched Anne's bum' and 'if she comes back'. It found those remarks were both detrimental and, in context, related to the claimant's race and age.

The sex claims were dismissed. The tribunal found no causal link between the conduct and the claimant's sex, and held that Mr Lewis would have acted in the same manner if the claimant had been male. It therefore dismissed both direct sex discrimination and sex harassment.

The tribunal upheld victimisation for Ms Foley's speaking to Ms Cartwright, Ms Foley's subsequent discussion with the other trainees, the dismissal on 4 October 2017, and the delay in processing the claimant's final pay. It found the dismissal and the pay delay were significantly influenced by the claimant's Employment Tribunal proceedings. It did not find victimisation in the grievance decision or appeal outcome, and it held that Mr Lewis's 'if she comes back' comment was not victimisation because he did not know the protected act. This judgment was on liability only; remedy was to be dealt with separately.