Case 2203105/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Ms L Halsall (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 2203105/2019
Decision date: 22 December 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Panel members: MS J GRIFFITHS, MR B TYSON

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Ms L Halsall (Counsel) For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Ms K Sodhi, a Detective Inspector in MIT 22 at Barking, brought claims arising from events between January and August 2019 alleging direct race and sex discrimination, harassment on grounds of race and/or sex, and victimisation. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, DCI Holmes, DSU Duffield, DCI Soole, DI Hillier, DI Jones and others, and found the team was under-strength, low in morale and under significant operational pressure. It concluded that DCI Holmes was not an impartial manager but that his support for the claimant did not prove unlawful treatment by the respondent.

On the direct discrimination claims, the tribunal accepted that DSU Duffield was concerned about the performance and management of MIT 22, and that his responses to the January 2019 complaints from DS Grey and DS Soren, the March 2019 HAT car issue, and the later acting-up decisions were driven by operational and managerial considerations rather than race or sex. It found no basis for the alleged comment about "Kam's a big girl, I heard she took the job to an ET and won", holding that DCI Holmes's account was not reliable in all respects and that DSU Duffield did not make the remark as alleged. It also found that DCI Soole's omission of the claimant's name from the 29 April 2019 handover email was an error, not deliberate discrimination, and that the 2 May, 10 May, 11 June, 8-17 July and 27 August 2019 incidents all had explanations rooted in urgency, teamwork or operational necessity.

On harassment, the tribunal accepted that some of the conduct was unwanted from the claimant's point of view, but found no evidence or inference that it was related to race or sex. It also held, if necessary, that the conduct was not reasonably capable of being treated as violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. On victimisation, the tribunal identified the claimant's 2017 ET proceedings, the November 2018 settlement and the grievance of 23 May 2019 as protected acts, but found that none of the alleged detriments was made out objectively and that there was no causal link to the protected acts. The judgment records no tribunal compensation; the references to £15,000 and £10,000 in the reasons were to invoice and authorisation issues, not an award.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	The tribunal found no evidence or inference that DSU Duffield or the other officers treated the claimant less favourably because of race. It accepted the respondent's operational and management explanations for the January and March 2019 events, the acting-up decision, and the later Operation P matters, and concluded a white comparator would have been treated the same way.	Dismissed	Race	—
Sex discrimination	The tribunal rejected the allegation that the claimant was treated less favourably because of sex. It accepted that the challenged conduct was explained by team management, hierarchy, or operational urgency, and held that a male comparator in materially similar circumstances would have been treated no differently.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Harassment	The tribunal accepted that some of the conduct was unwanted from the claimant's perspective, but found no evidence or inference that it was related to race or sex. It also held that, even if some matters had been unwanted conduct, it was not reasonable for them to be regarded as violating dignity or creating the statutory hostile environment.	Dismissed	—	—
Victimisation	The agreed protected acts were the claimant's 2017 ET proceedings, the November 2018 settlement, and the grievance of 23 May 2019. The tribunal found no objectively actionable detriment and no causal link between those protected acts and the conduct complained of; it also found that some officers did not have the alleged knowledge of the protected acts.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

17 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.