Ms D Sundar v Cardiff University — 2023

The tribunal heard Ms Sundar's claims in March 2023 and first dealt with a series of case-management issues, including refusal of a late supplementary bundle, an amended witness statement and audio evidence. It then determined the agreed liability issues for unfair dismissal, protected-disclosure detriment and automatic unfair dismissal, breach of contract, direct race and marriage discrimination, disability discrimination and victimisation. All claims were dismissed.

On disability, the tribunal accepted that Ms Sundar experienced headaches and related eye symptoms in spring 2020, but held that the evidence did not show migraines, insomnia, PTSD or depression/anxiety had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on day-to-day activities. It noted that the headaches had resolved by June 2020, that insomnia was not supported by the medical evidence, that PTSD was self-diagnosed, and that the evidence about depression and anxiety did not establish duration or effect sufficient to satisfy s.6 Equality Act 2010. Because she was not found to be disabled, the reasonable-adjustments complaint failed.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal considered the alleged disclosures of 10 January 2019, 19 November 2019 and 21 August 2020. It held that these documents were, in substance, the claimant's own complaints about workload, management, supervision, colleague relationships and her employment situation, rather than qualifying disclosures with sufficient factual content showing a breach of legal obligation, a health and safety risk or a miscarriage of justice. The tribunal also found no reasonable belief that disclosure was in the public interest. As a result, the s.47B detriment complaints and the s.103A automatic unfair dismissal case failed.

The tribunal found that Ms Sundar was dismissed on 9 August 2021 for capability after failing probation, not because of any protected disclosure. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the claimant had clear probation objectives, regular reviews, support from managers and mentors, and an independent probation process followed by an appeal. The tribunal held that the respondent acted reasonably in treating capability as a sufficient reason for dismissal and was not obliged to redeploy her to another role.

The breach of contract claim, framed in the issues as wrongful dismissal / notice pay, was rejected because the claimant accepted that she had been paid three months' notice pay and her case was only that she should have been allowed to work the notice period. The direct marriage discrimination allegation about an admissions role and the question about childcare on Saturdays was found not proved and was also out of time.

The direct race discrimination allegations about workload support, assistance with materials, conference attendance, removal of roles and networking opportunities were dismissed. The tribunal found that some allegations were not clearly dated, some were out of time, and the evidence did not show that any of the treatment complained of was because of race. The victimisation claim also failed: the tribunal held that the 19 November 2019 and 21 August 2020 complaints were not protected acts for s.27 Equality Act purposes, and that the later complaints about the PIP, grievance handling, probation outcome, HCPC referral and post-dismissal matters were explained by performance concerns, ordinary procedural steps or administrative reasons rather than retaliation. No remedy was awarded in this liability judgment.