Miss X v Y Limited — 2024

The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, EL and IS and applied the Gestmin approach when assessing recollection. It found the claimant was disabled for Equality Act purposes by reason of anxiety and depression, which the respondent accepted. It also recorded that the claimant resigned on 28 March 2023 while the grievance process was still ongoing, after handing in a grievance and resignation letter on 7 March 2023.

On race discrimination, the tribunal found IS mispronounced the claimant's first name for the first two weeks of her employment but stopped after she corrected him, and that this was a genuine mistake rather than treatment because of race. It also found the alleged comments by EL on 28 February 2023 about the claimant's attitude and behaviour being 'aggressive' were based on customer complaints and concerns from NH and IS, and would have been raised in the same way to a hypothetical white employee. The name-pronunciation complaint was also held to be outside the normal time limit and not suitable for an extension.

On discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal accepted that EL said the claimant would benefit from being 'thicker skinned' in the context of a general discussion with all three supervisors about customer complaints, but found this was constructive feedback and not because of disability. It also held that the absence of formal work-shadowing after the December 2022 return-to-work meeting did not amount to unlawful treatment, because the respondent had made some adjustments, work was limited over the winter period, and the respondent's aims of supporting the claimant back to work and helping her cope with customer complaints were legitimate and were pursued proportionately.

On constructive dismissal, the tribunal found that the safe key incident was serious and that the claimant and CL were both involved, but it did not accept that EL disproportionately reprimanded the claimant. It accepted IS's evidence that stock ordering was a supervisor responsibility in AT's absence and that the claimant had failed to place at least one requested order. Taken together, the matters relied on by the claimant did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence, so the tribunal held there was no constructive dismissal and dismissed the claim.