Miss S Bailey v The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and 7 others — 2022

The claimant began work on 2 November 2020 as a trainee switchboard operator. The tribunal accepted that she was the only black recruit in her intake and that standard training included a dyslexia test for all tutees, although the timing of the test was moved because the course had been truncated. Mr Lee and Ms Marshall said the claimant was noticeably slower than others on written exercises and appeared to be falling asleep; the tribunal accepted those observations as genuine and found that the offer of a dyslexia test was made as a support measure, not because of race, sex, or perceived disability.

The tribunal also accepted the evidence that the claimant was repeatedly observed with her eyes closed or appearing to drift off during training and later tutoring. On 12 November 2020 Ms Humphries sent her home after reports from tutors led management to think she was not fit to be at work. The tribunal found this was a welfare and performance response, not discriminatory treatment. The same approach underlay the later probationary review process, where the tribunal found that Mr Harpham, Ms Jackson and Ms Bland reviewed the call logs, support measures and performance history before deciding that the claimant could not be confirmed in post within a reasonable timeframe.

The claimant's remaining direct discrimination and harassment complaints all failed. The tribunal held that the claimant had not shown that the dyslexia-test request, the send-home decision, or Mr Harpham's instruction that she remain on the ground floor during the adjournment were because of race or sex. On the disability-based claims, the tribunal found that the respondent did not perceive the claimant as disabled; it saw her as a trainee who might benefit from support, and the harassment allegation failed because the conduct was not related to perceived disability in the way required by section 26 Equality Act 2010.

The victimisation claims also failed. The tribunal held that the invitation to a probationary review meeting, the recommendation to terminate, the grievance-report handling, the eyecare voucher issue, the February 2021 overpayment recovery, and the redacted subject access response all had non-retaliatory explanations. In particular, the grievance outcome report was initially treated in line with normal practice and data-protection concerns, the overpayment was later recalculated to £1,404.11 after notice pay and holiday were taken into account, and the subject access redactions were made by a newly trained compliance clerk applying her understanding of data-protection rules.

The tribunal found no evidence of the wider conspiracy alleged by the claimant. It noted that one direct sex discrimination complaint against Ms Marshall was withdrawn during the hearing, and all remaining discrimination, harassment and victimisation complaints were dismissed. No tribunal award was made.