In person For the v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal heard a claim of direct race discrimination arising from events between October 2018 and 4 November 2019. The claimant, who described her race as British Pakistani, alleged that Linda Wildridge, Charlotte Mustoe and HR subjected her to less favourable treatment in relation to her return from maternity leave, the handling of a disciplinary investigation, delays in being told the allegations, the management of her grievance, and the way the outcome of a meeting with Ms Mustoe was recorded.

The tribunal found that several of the alleged acts did not occur as pleaded. It held that Ms Wildridge did support the claimant on her return from maternity leave, that the respondent did address the claimant’s grievance of 24 January 2019, and that HR did not refuse to disclose the outcome of the 1 March 2019 meeting because no such outcome was recorded on the HR system. It also found that any failure to amend the personnel file flowed from the absence of a record, rather than from a race-based refusal.

On the allegations that did occur, the tribunal accepted that the investigation into the claimant’s conduct was unusually formal and that there was a lengthy delay before she was told the detailed allegations. It also found that the claimant was prevented from continuing her own investigation into the patient mis-reporting issue once Ms Mustoe had directed Ms Wildridge to investigate. However, the tribunal concluded that these actions were not because of the claimant’s race. It accepted the respondent’s explanation that the delay resulted from the new pre-investigation checklist process and the claimant’s annual leave, and it found that Ms Mustoe and Ms Wildridge were acting on the basis of the incident reports, the complaint from Lorry Phelan, and the respondent’s procedures, rather than race.

The tribunal considered the comparator evidence and noted that Ms Meaney, who was white, was also investigated formally. It found that David Johnson was not a sufficiently similar comparator and analysed the case using a hypothetical comparator. Applying the burden of proof principles, it held that the claimant had not established primary facts from which discrimination could be inferred; alternatively, if the burden had shifted, the respondent had provided cogent non-discriminatory explanations. The claim was therefore dismissed in full and no remedy was awarded. Because no allegation succeeded, the tribunal did not go on to determine the time-limit issue.