Case 1804840/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss W Shah v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 1804840/2021
- Decision date
- 28 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Ms J Noble, Mr R Stead
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss W Shah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal rejected the claimant's direct race discrimination allegations. It found no credible basis to infer that the reallocation or non-restoration of CME work, the daily reporting arrangements during remote working, the conduct and recording of supervision meetings, the omission from the 5 May 2021 email, the 2021 restructure changes, or the delay in the EHWB referral were because of race. In several instances the tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation that the treatment reflected operational arrangements, earlier restructuring decisions, or administrative failures rather than racial motivation.
The harassment allegations were also dismissed. Although the tribunal accepted that the claimant was distressed by the 14 May 2021 telephone call and that Danielle Wilson raised her voice, it found no credible evidence that the conduct was related to race. It likewise found that the other matters relied on as harassment did not establish conduct related to race or treatment from which such an inference could properly be drawn.
Most victimisation allegations failed. The tribunal found that requiring the claimant to continue reporting to Danielle Wilson, asking her to attend the 16 June 2021 meeting, and offering a move to another team were pragmatic steps taken to manage an ongoing working relationship, not detriments materially caused by the protected act. It also found that the EHWB referral delay was a bureaucratic failure rather than victimisation.
The tribunal upheld only the victimisation claim concerning delay in progressing the grievance. It found that the respondent failed to conduct the grievance within its own procedural timescales, that the delay in commissioning the investigation was inordinate and inexcusable, and that no adequate explanation had been provided. The tribunal concluded that the delay was materially influenced by the fact and nature of the grievance alleging race discrimination, so a remedy hearing was required.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination allegations were not well-founded and were dismissed, including allegations about CME responsibilities, daily reporting while remote working, supervision meetings, omission from the 5 May 2021 email, reduction of responsibilities during restructure, grievance delay, and EHWB referral delay. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race allegations were not well-founded and were dismissed, including allegations about daily reporting while remote working, supervision meetings, omission from the 5 May 2021 email, and the 14 May 2021 phone call. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation allegation concerning the requirement that the claimant continue to report to Danielle Wilson was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation allegation concerning pressure to attend the 16 June 2021 meeting with Danielle Wilson was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation allegation concerning the proposal that the claimant move teams was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Deer v University of Oxford
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Comr
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.