Mrs J Popoola v Department for Education — 2019

Mrs J Popoola, a black SEO in the Department for Education's SISL division, alleged race discrimination, race-related harassment and victimisation arising from management interactions in 2017 and 2018, her placement on the talent grid, a grievance raised on 19 March 2018, and the handling of that grievance and appeal. The tribunal first held that complaints about acts or omissions before 6 March 2018 were out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time for them unless they formed part of a continuing act; it found they did not.

On the earlier allegations, the tribunal rejected the claimant's case on the merits in any event. It found that Mr Capstick had arranged support when a member of the claimant's team died, that he had no reason to intervene when a colleague felt unwell, and that asking where the claimant was did not amount to a detriment. It found no evidence that Ms Mitchell refused an instant reward bonus, denied training, or used the phrase "They all look the same"; and it held that Simon Rich's reported comment about the claimant being an SEO was about the way she had handled recruitment, not her race.

The tribunal also rejected the claimant's complaints about the 8 March 2018 senior management discussion of talent grid markings. It found that the discussion was a private management meeting aimed at consistency, that the claimant's name was raised because managers had concerns about her relationships and management style, and that there was no race-based reason for the comments. It further found that the claimant was moved to the Teacher Workforce Development team because she had asked for a move away from her previous team, and that placing her in the "inconsistent" box on 4 June 2018 reflected that she had recently moved into a policy role and was still getting up to speed.

As to the grievance and appeal, the tribunal found that Emran Mian carried out a fair and impartial investigation, interviewing the claimant and the named individuals and reviewing documents. It accepted that his report did not mention every document, but said that this did not show race discrimination or victimisation. Ms Watts partially upheld the appeal only because the investigation report did not indicate whether all material supplied by the claimant had been considered, but she rejected the substantive appeal. The tribunal concluded that, taken as a whole, the claimant had not been subjected to any unfair or unfavourable treatment because of race or because she had done a protected act, and all claims were dismissed.