Case 2205970/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Davies, Solicitor v Respondent — 2018
- Case reference
- 2205970/2017
- Decision date
- 26 April 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Members
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr M Simon, Mr J Carroll
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr L Davies, Solicitor
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Howard worked for the IPCC from 31 October 2016 to 31 March 2017 on a fixed-term Grade 10 investigator contract. She brought race discrimination, victimisation, harassment and protected-disclosure detriment claims based on 33 alleged detriments, which the tribunal grouped into eight themes including the restriction on MPS work, the handling of her name change, the type of work allocated to her, scrutiny of where she worked, the handling of her concerns about the supervised MPS investigation, non-shortlisting for a permanent post, remarks about looking elsewhere, and the decision not to renew her contract.
The tribunal rejected the suggestion that the restriction on her working on MPS matters was discriminatory or retaliatory. It found that management acted because she had previously litigated against the MPS, was an interested person in an IPCC-supervised investigation, and had not disclosed a later MPS claim on her conflict form. It accepted that there was ample other investigative work for her to do, and it regarded the name-change discussion, the office-wide email, and the requirement that she work with the team rather than in a pod as ordinary or light-touch management responses rather than detriments.
The tribunal also rejected the alleged protected disclosure and the complaints about how the respondent handled her concerns about the supervised investigation and the allocation of work. It found that asking her to focus on document-heavy tasks, moving her between investigations, and asking for accurate timesheets reflected operational needs in a busy team. It found no evidence that the respondent caused delay in the supervised investigation because of her complaints, and no evidence that the non-shortlisting for the permanent role was attributable to the respondent, since Penna ran that sift.
On the end of the contract, the tribunal accepted that the timesheet discrepancies were real and serious enough to warrant investigation. It concluded that this was a genuine reason for concern and that the employment ended on 31 March 2017 when the claimant did not consent to an extension. The tribunal dismissed all claims and recorded no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal rejected the allegation that 33 detriments arose because the claimant is black, including the restriction on MPS work, work allocation, scrutiny, and non-renewal of the fixed-term contract. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found no detriment caused by the claimant's earlier discrimination claims against the MPS; it accepted the respondent's conflict-of-interest explanation and found no retaliatory treatment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal rejected the allegation of race-related unwanted conduct, including the complaints about management scrutiny, meetings, and the handling of her name change. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal did not accept that the claimant proved a protected disclosure to Ms Witty on or about 23 November 2016, and found no detriment because of any protected disclosure(s). | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Madarassy 'something more' burden of proof
- direct discrimination: less favourable treatment because of race
- victimisation: protected act and detriment
- harassment: unwanted conduct related to race with purpose/effect test
- protected disclosure detriment under the Employment Rights Act 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.