Ms E Banton, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant, a senior campaigner in Amnesty International's Eastern Europe and Central Asia programme, objected to Amnesty's 7 May 2021 decision to reinstate Alexei Navalny as a Prisoner of Conscience. Her 27 May 2021 grievance said the decision was racist and Islamophobic and raised concerns about the effect on Muslims. The tribunal held that the grievance disclosed information and that the claimant reasonably believed it was in the public interest, but it did not accept that it was reasonable for her to believe that the redesignation itself would endanger health or safety. The protected disclosure detriment claim therefore failed, and the respondent's decision not to include the Navalny policy decision within the grievance process was not treated as a detriment caused by any disclosure.

The claimant did not return to work after March 2022 and confirmed on 27 March 2022 that she could not return while the Prisoner of Conscience decision remained in place. The respondent dismissed her on 9 May 2022 on notice, and the appeal was dismissed on 2 August 2022. The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was SOSR: a breakdown in the working relationship and the claimant's refusal to return to work. It held that this was a potentially fair reason and that the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses under section 98(4) ERA 1996. The automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 also failed because the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's refusal to return and her prolonged absence, not any protected disclosure.

On the religion claims, the tribunal accepted that being Muslim was part of the claimant's identity and that she could rely on that protected characteristic. It nevertheless rejected the direct religion discrimination claim, finding no less favourable treatment because of religion or belief. In particular, it found that the 7 May 2021 reinstatement announcement, the role of colleagues, the handling of the grievance and the dismissal were responses to the Navalny policy dispute and not to the claimant's religion. The tribunal also rejected the harassment claim under section 26 EqA because the conduct complained of was not related to religion or belief and, viewed objectively, did not create the proscribed environment.

The direct disability discrimination claim was withdrawn. The tribunal found the claimant was disabled by reason of work-related stress and anxiety from April 2022 onward, but held that the respondent only had knowledge of that disability from 22 June 2022 when the claimant asserted the long-term nature of her symptoms. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the alleged failures to apply disciplinary and grievance procedures, and to offer mediation, were not accepted as a relevant PCP. The victimisation claim also failed because the presentation of the first Tribunal claim on 7 October 2021 did not play any part in the dismissal. No monetary award was made.