Mr M O’Carroll (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant worked for Deloitte LLP from 5 March 2018 to 16 November 2021 as a Technical Director in the Privacy/Cyber Security practice. On the direct race discrimination claim, the tribunal found that the decision to appoint her as Technical Director rather than Director was based on Mr Seaver's view that her specialist privacy experience did not fit the broader Director role, not on her Sri Lankan origin. It accepted that the change was not well explained and that the consequences for progression were not properly communicated, but it dismissed the race claim.

The tribunal rejected the remaining race allegations and the victimisation claim. It accepted that the claimant used bias/discrimination language on 2 October 2019 and that later grievances were protected acts, but it found the performance process, feedback gathering, mediation issues and eventual SOSR steps were driven by genuine concerns about performance, communication and a breakdown in relationships, not because she had raised protected acts. It also found that a white or European comparator would have been treated the same in the material respects relied on.

The claimant was accepted to be disabled by anxiety and depression from 14 January 2020, and the tribunal found Deloitte knew or should have known by early March 2020. It dismissed the indirect disability discrimination claim, holding that the alleged practices were either not PCPs or were specific to this case rather than general practices, and that the claim did not satisfy the necessary elements.

The discrimination arising from disability claim succeeded in part. The reasons section records success on the delay in arranging Occupational Health support between March and June 2020, the failure to progress the Chief Privacy Officer application promptly in July and August 2021 when the claimant was off sick, and the delayed referral to Legal & General's Permanent Health Insurance scheme in 2021. The remaining section 15 allegations, including the mediation dispute, secondment, vacancy list and dismissal, were dismissed.

The reasonable adjustments claim was dismissed. The tribunal accepted that holding SOSR meetings could place a disabled employee at a disadvantage, but held that the adjustments sought were not reasonable and that several alleged practices were not PCPs. The unfair dismissal claim also failed: the tribunal found a genuine SOSR reason based on an irretrievable breakdown in relationships and held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. All claims against Mr Gooch were dismissed, and no remedy was determined in this judgment because a separate remedy hearing was still required.