Mr P Compston v Connect Housing Association limited — 2020

Mr P Compston worked as a Supported Housing Officer for Connect Housing Association from 28 January 2019. On 9 September 2019 he called the respondent's domestic abuse helpline and explained that his girlfriend had a drug addiction problem, that he had locked her in the house while he was at work, had put a combination lock on the gate, and had taken her phone. The call handler realised the caller was a member of staff and the matter was escalated. He was then suspended on full pay on 11 September 2019 because the respondent considered the conduct raised a genuine safeguarding concern in light of his lone working with vulnerable service users.

The tribunal recorded that the claimant's pleaded complaint was direct sex discrimination. The comparator agreed between the parties was a hypothetical female employee who made a similar call to the domestic abuse line and described similar conduct by a partner. The claimant's disciplinary meeting took place on 18 September 2019 and the dismissal decision followed on 3 October 2019. The dismissal was said to be for Some Other Substantial Reason, namely that the claimant's errors of judgment meant he was not suitable to continue in a role involving lone working with vulnerable people. His appeal was later rejected by Martyn Broadest.

Applying section 13 and the burden of proof under section 136 Equality Act 2010, and referring to Igen v Wong and Madarassy, the tribunal held that the claimant had not established facts from which it could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that he had been treated less favourably because of his sex. It accepted the respondent's evidence that a female employee making the same call would have been treated in the same way. The tribunal also held that there was a clear non-discriminatory explanation: genuine safeguarding concerns arising from the information disclosed in the call and the claimant's role with vulnerable service users.

The tribunal therefore found that the claimant was not subjected to direct sex discrimination and dismissed the claim. It noted sympathy for the claimant's position and said that, had the case been one of unfair dismissal, there may have been an argument about fairness, but that was not the claim before it.