Miss Z Parry v University of South Wales — 2026

The tribunal dismissed the victimisation complaints. It accepted that Miss Parry's participation on 10 January 2024 in investigations into grievances raised by Helen Higgins and Mark Boulter was a protected act. However, the alleged reduction in responsibilities did not occur in 2024; running the grievance and dismissal processes concurrently and asking about repairing relationships were not detriments; isolation or ostracism was not proved; and the protected act was not shown to have influenced the dismissal. The tribunal also found that Rhian Kinsella did not know the grievances included age discrimination or that Miss Parry had given evidence in them when Alexandra Maneta was appointed to temporary course leadership.

The reasonable-adjustments claims concerning the Baseline Model and dismissal process were dismissed. Although Miss Parry had previously been determined to be disabled by symptoms consistent with hypothyroidism and perimenopause, the tribunal found that the respondent could not reasonably have been expected to know this until it received the second occupational-health report in April or May 2024. It found no knowledge that either PCP placed her at the claimed substantial disadvantage: she had not linked difficulty with the Baseline Model to a health condition, and the occupational-health report encouraged the dismissal process to proceed promptly without recommending meeting adjustments.

The s.15 disability discrimination claims were also dismissed. The dismissal process and dismissal were accepted as unfavourable treatment, but the tribunal found that any inability to comply with the Baseline Model was not a significant influence or effective reason for either. Non-compliance appeared in the background evidence, but the process and outcome focused on Miss Parry's responses to management and the state of the employment relationship.

The direct age discrimination claim concerning course leadership was dismissed because Miss Parry did not prove facts permitting an inference that age explained the treatment. The tribunal found that Alexandra Maneta was appointed because she expressed interest, had capacity and could undertake teaching in China; Miss Parry expressed interest only later while on sickness absence. The indirect age discrimination claim was dismissed because there was insufficient evidence about the relevant employees' ages, salaries or alleged targeting to establish that the cost-cutting PCP particularly disadvantaged employees aged 45–60.

The tribunal found that none of the communications relied upon as PD1–PD15 amounted to a qualifying disclosure. It considered them individually, by recipient group and collectively, applying Kilraine. Most were general assertions about workplace culture, wellbeing, workload or management without sufficient factual content and specificity to tend to show breach of a legal obligation or danger to health and safety. Where some facts were conveyed, the tribunal found that the statutory-failure or reasonable public-interest requirements were not established. The protected-disclosure detriment claims consequently failed; alternatively, the tribunal found no material influence on the alleged treatment. The s.103A automatic unfair dismissal claim likewise failed because the protected disclosures were not the reason or principal reason for dismissal.