Mrs Rajni Singh v Convatec Ltd — 2020

Mrs Singh brought a race discrimination claim arising from events between November 2008 and 4 December 2018. The tribunal struck out the earliest November 2008 complaint about ring-fencing remuneration as outside jurisdiction at a preliminary hearing on 16 January 2020. It then considered 19 factual allegations, after a prior preliminary decision and an amendment to the claim, and heard evidence from the claimant and five witnesses for the respondent.

On the main race discrimination allegations, the tribunal preferred the evidence of Ms Carla Williams, Ms Angharad Vaughan and Mr Stuart Foster where their accounts conflicted with the claimant's. It found that the claimant had not been shouted at in the way alleged, had not been called an "Indian bitch", and had not proved that the workplace instructions and discussions complained of were motivated by race. The tribunal accepted that difficulties between the claimant and Ms Williams arose in the context of Ms Williams becoming senior after the 2016 restructure, and it found the claimant was offended by management instructions that the tribunal regarded as reasonable in character.

The harassment allegations were dismissed for the same factual reasons. The tribunal also rejected the complaints about Ms Amy James' response to the March 2018 issues concerning the locker and the mask, finding that Ms James responded promptly, asked questions and delegated the investigation, and that the claimant's emails did not alert her to discrimination or harassment. Applying section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 and the authorities it cited, including Shamoon, Nagarajan and Madarassy, the tribunal found that the claimant had not established facts from which race discrimination could properly be inferred.

On victimisation, the allegation against Ms Elizabeth Cook concerning the grievance investigation was withdrawn. The remaining victimisation allegations were dismissed. The tribunal found that the claimant had in fact been moved temporarily to a different unit and shift after her grievance, that the grievance and appeal did not recommend a permanent shift move because the underlying discrimination complaints were not upheld and mediation was considered the better way to resolve the working relationship, and that the 4 December 2018 request to step down from the development process owner role was met with a prompt conditional response rather than a refusal. It also found that Mr Pearson's 10 January 2019 question about whether the claimant would withdraw her tribunal claim was not a detriment and was not made conditional on withdrawal. No monetary remedy was awarded.