Ms Louise Lewis v The North Huddersfield Trust and 1 other — 2020

Ms Lewis was a PE teacher and NEU representative. The tribunal heard claims of direct race discrimination and harassment in case 1805209/2021, and victimisation plus unfair dismissal in case 1801640/2022. It found that the dispute began after the claimant's 27 November 2019 email about part-time directed hours and the 2 December 2019 meeting with Mr Fell, and then continued through later disputes about union meetings, parent’s evening attendance, covid risk assessments, and the disciplinary process.

The race discrimination and harassment claims failed. The tribunal accepted that Mr Fell described the claimant as "rather aggressive and accusatory" after she raised bullying and harassment concerns, but held that this reflected his genuine reaction to her challenge and not a racial stereotype. It found no comparable white employee in materially similar circumstances, no evidence that the claimant was treated less favourably because she was black, and concluded that there was no individual or institutional racism or racial prejudice.

On victimisation, the tribunal found that by 16 September 2020 Mr Fell understood the claimant might make an Equality Act complaint after she said she would seek advice from an NEU Equality Officer. It held that this belief was a material influence on the decision to suspend her on 1 October 2020. The separate complaint that the suspension was open-ended and unreasonably lengthy failed, because the suspension ended with the disciplinary outcome on 6 May 2021 and the later period of authorised paid leave followed the claimant's own request.

The tribunal also held that the decision to dismiss the claimant on 31 December 2021 was victimisation. Mr Weston was the sole decision-maker, but he was knowingly influenced by Mr Fell and other senior leaders whose objections to the claimant's return were bound up with her grievance and tribunal claims. Even so, the tribunal found that dismissal would have occurred in any event because the respondent genuinely concluded that there had been a breakdown in working relationships and that mediation or reintegration was not realistically workable.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded because, applying section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal considered the dismissal outside the band of reasonable responses. It found that the respondent did not sufficiently explore practical alternatives such as reducing contact or using a different line management structure, and that the decision-making process relied too heavily on a one-sided account of the breakdown. The tribunal directed that any basic and compensatory award be reduced by 50% for the claimant's conduct, but no remedy figure was determined at this stage and a remedy hearing was to follow.