Ms E Banton, counsel For the v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal heard nine days of evidence from the claimant and Council witnesses and applied the burden of proof under the Equality Act 2010 to each allegation. It found that some incidents had occurred in whole or in part, but even where the claimant proved the factual occurrence of an incident, the respondent's explanations were accepted as operational, developmental, or otherwise non-discriminatory. No claim succeeded and no monetary remedy was awarded.

On the race claims, the tribunal rejected most pleaded incidents on the facts. Where it accepted that conduct occurred, including the LADO discussion in September and October 2019, the discussion about the Keighley Mosque RSE event, the September 2020 Attendance Officer interview, the March 2021 risk-assessment training discussions, the YOT meeting comment, and the April 2021 London and annual leave discussions, it held that none of those matters were because of race. It also found that the Attendance Officer panel was not in line with best practice on diversity, but that this did not prove race discrimination, and it held that the 9 December 2019 RSE issue would not in any event justify extending time on a just and equitable basis.

The harassment claim failed because the alleged negative comments about BAME candidates in the YOT Manager process were not made. The victimisation claim failed because, although the claimant's protected acts of 15 December 2020 and 9 March 2021 were accepted, the later treatment was not caused by those protected acts. The tribunal also rejected the constructive dismissal case: it found that the claimant resigned on 30 April 2021 because he wanted to be in London to support his ill parents, not because of any repudiatory breach or because of the protected disclosures he had made.