Ms K Ahmed (Representative) v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal dismissed the complaint of harassment related to race. It accepted that there had been a safeguarding concern in March 2015 about inappropriate material, but found it difficult to make findings at that distance in time and concluded that the Claimant probably had not been accused of teaching extremist views. In any event, the complaint was presented about five years later and it was not just and equitable to extend time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.

On disability, the tribunal held that the Respondent had constructive knowledge of the Claimant's disability by September 2019, relying on the 2016 GP letter, the earlier room adjustment in 2018, and the Claimant's later emails about her knee problems. However, the disability discrimination complaints all failed. The tribunal found that the allocation of the upstairs room and the block B placement did not place the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage on the facts found, because the difficulty identified was stairs rather than moving on the flat, the lift only failed on one occasion in autumn 2019, and a mid-term room change would in any event have been impractical and not a reasonable adjustment.

The tribunal also rejected the section 15 complaint because it was not satisfied that the treatment was because of something arising in consequence of disability. It found no sufficient causal link between the room allocation or block placement and plantar fasciitis or difficulty with stairs, and it rejected direct disability discrimination and harassment related to disability for essentially the same reasons. The victimisation complaint was dismissed overall: the grievance of 13 December 2019 was a protected act, but most alleged detriments were not made out. One allegation about the appeal / disciplinary wording was treated by the majority as a detriment, but the majority found it was not because of the protected act; Mr Soskin dissented on that point.

The constructive dismissal claim succeeded because the grievance outcome letter of 25 March 2020 stated that any appeal would be treated as rejection of the peaceful solution and that the disciplinary process would resume. The tribunal held that this wording put pressure on the Claimant not to appeal and was at least likely to seriously damage trust and confidence. The Claimant resigned on 31 March 2020, six days after the grievance outcome, and the tribunal found that she had not affirmed the contract. The dismissal was without notice, so the breach of contract complaint also succeeded. Remedies were not determined in this judgment and were listed for a later hearing on 11 October 2021.