Ms Brooke-Ward (Counsel) v Respondent — 2024

The Claimant, who was found to be Asian, Muslim and British Pakistani, brought direct race discrimination complaints under s.13 Equality Act 2010 about three matters: the refusal of a temporary duties allowance in September 2020, the imposition of a three-month review for any further loan extension, and the termination of her DHSC loan on 17 March 2021. The Tribunal applied the comparator and burden-of-proof authorities it cited, including Shamoon, Igen, Madarassy, Hewage and s.136 EqA, and also considered limitation for acts before 12 March 2021.

On the September 2020 TDA issue, the Tribunal found the Claimant was doing some additional work, but accepted Helen Scothern's evidence that the work was not grade 7 work and therefore did not justify a TDA. It rejected Ian Powling as a comparator because he was in materially different circumstances, including redeployment and a competition process. The Tribunal also held that this allegation was out of time by about four months as at 12 March 2021 and that there was no good reason to extend time.

On the 3+3 review issue, the Tribunal found Ms Scothern did require a three-month review for further extension of the Claimant's loan, but accepted that she believed in good faith that such a policy applied. It noted the lack of a written DHSC policy and the inconsistent treatment of other staff, but concluded that the Claimant had not proved the decision was because of race. On the termination issue, the Tribunal found that Ms Harrison ended the loan in a way that was not consistent with HR policy, was unfair and arbitrary, and denied the Claimant a proper opportunity to respond, but it rejected race as the reason because Ms Harrison had recently been pressing for the Claimant to join her team and the Tribunal accepted performance concerns and grade confusion as the explanation. All discrimination claims were dismissed.