Case 2200543/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Smithson v British Telecommunications plc — 2022
- Case reference
- 2200543/2022
- Decision date
- 6 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris Members
- Panel members
- Mr N Brockmann, Mr S Soskin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Smithson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Contract Assurance Specialist, complained about interactions with Mrs King during and after a Teams meeting about audit actions, the proposed change to her reporting line after the appointment of Mr Cope, and her subsequent resignation. The Tribunal found that some alleged matters were not proved, including that Mrs King said the claimant was not qualified to do her job. It found that Mrs King did question aspects of the claimant's role, dismissed or did not accept the claimant's assertions about the racial impact of her conduct, and said words to the effect that she would not be controlled in how she spoke.
The Tribunal accepted that the claimant was demoted in substance when Mr Cope was introduced above her in the reporting line, because this reduced her standing, direct reporting access, responsibilities and accountabilities. It also found that this amounted to a repudiatory breach, but held that the claimant had not resigned in response to that breach; the resignation was found to have been primarily because of the issues with Mrs King. The constructive dismissal allegation therefore was not made out for the purposes considered in the discrimination and victimisation issues.
For direct discrimination, the Tribunal held that the claimant had not shown less favourable treatment because of race. It found that Mrs King's conduct arose from frustration over the audit process and the claimant's approach, and that the respondent's decision about Mr Cope was related to his relevant experience and the respondent's concerns about the claimant's performance, not race. For harassment, the Tribunal accepted that the conduct was unwanted and that the demotion could reasonably have had a degrading effect, but found that the conduct was not related to race. For victimisation, the Tribunal accepted that the claimant had done protected acts on 21 and 27 September 2021 and that demotion was a detriment, but found no evidence that the demotion was because of those protected acts.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaint under sections 13 and 39 Equality Act 2010 was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race complaint under sections 26 and 40 Equality Act 2010 was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaint under sections 27 and 39 Equality Act 2010 was found not well-founded and dismissed. The protected acts relied on were race discrimination assertions/grievances, but victimisation itself is not assigned a protected characteristic in the schema. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
22 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 39 Equality Act 2010
- section 40 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Ayodele v Citylink Ltd
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan
- Madarassy
- Pemberton v Inwood
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- English v Thomas Sanderson Blinds Ltd
- Western Excavating (ECC) Limited v Sharp
- Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Limited
- Malik v BCCI
- Gogay v Hertfordshire County Council
- Derbyshire v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council
- Durrani v London Borough of Ealing
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.