Case 2206050/2019 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2019

Case reference: 2206050/2019
Decision date: 18 November 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge O Segal QC
Panel members: Ms J Grant, Mr G Bishop

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Ms Miles, who is black/African British, worked for Health Education England as Programme Lead for the Children and Young People's Mental Health Programme from June 2019. The tribunal found that much of the dispute arose from differing views about the working relationship between her and the Project Manager, GA, and about how much support GA needed. It accepted the respondent witnesses unless there was an objective basis to prefer the claimant's evidence, and it found that the claimant's recollection was often inconsistent with contemporaneous documents. The tribunal rejected as implausible her broader suggestion that HEE had recruited a black Programme Lead in order to exploit her for GA's career development.

On the direct race discrimination claim, the tribunal rejected each of the pleaded complaints. It found that the pay point issue arose from a misunderstanding about the London High Cost Area supplement and noted that a white comparator had also been appointed at the lowest pay point. It accepted that GA, AM, SG and KAS had interactions with the claimant about appraisal, meetings, workload, flexible working, annual leave, presentation drafts and the management of GA, but it found those interactions were explained by ordinary management reasons. In two or more instances, the tribunal said a reasonable tribunal could conclude that discrimination had occurred at the stage 1 analysis, but it accepted the respondent's explanation and dismissed the complaints anyway.

The harassment claim also failed. The tribunal held that SG's criticism of the claimant's emails to GA was unwanted conduct and could create a degrading environment, but that the criticism was genuine and was not related to race. On victimisation, the tribunal identified the claimant's Informal Grievance of 18 November 2019 as the first protected act, but found that none of the later conduct complained of was because of that protected act. It therefore rejected the claims of discrimination, harassment and victimisation in full and recorded no award.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	The tribunal rejected the claimant's direct race discrimination case in full, including complaints about pay, workload, appraisal comments, management meetings, criticism of her work, flexible working requests, annual leave, and programme structure changes. On several individual issues it found the facts could potentially support an inference of discrimination at stage 1, but it accepted the respondent's non-discriminatory explanation and dismissed the complaints.	Dismissed	Race	—
Harassment	The tribunal accepted that SG's criticism of the claimant's emails to GA was unwanted conduct and could create a degrading environment, but it found that conduct was a genuine management response and was not related to race.	Dismissed	Race	—
Victimisation	The tribunal found the claimant's Informal Grievance on 18 November 2019 was the first protected act, but none of the later conduct relied on was because of that protected act. It also did not allow amendment to add complaints about events after the ET1.	Dismissed	Race	—

Legal tests applied

6 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.