Mr Changez Khan (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2021

The Tribunal held that Ms Warner was directly discriminated against because of race contrary to sections 13 and 39(2)(d) of the Equality Act 2010 in connection with the handling of the YAF disciplinary process. It found the case was difficult and finely balanced, but concluded that Mr Stevens, Ms Warrander and Dr Pycroft treated her with unwarranted suspicion, made unfair assumptions about her, and “othered” her during the process. The Tribunal said the discrimination was unconscious rather than overt.

On the individual allegations, the Tribunal found race discrimination in Dr Pycroft’s drafting of the allegations, which it said went beyond what should have been alleged and improperly moved into an investigation of the Claimant’s private relationship and sex life. It also upheld allegations that the Claimant’s concerns about YAF’s governance and financial management were dismissed too superficially, that she was denied the chance to check the notes of her investigatory interview or to respond to later evidence, and that Ms Warrander’s report was slanted and used the words “hostile” and “aggressive” in an unwarranted way. It further found discrimination in the way the 6 May 2020 disciplinary hearing was conducted, the issuing of the 18 May 2020 final written warning, the failure to deal properly with the grievance about Ms Bassey and Ms Grant, the failure to take proper care over the Claimant’s wellbeing and personal security, and the later exclusion from available work while she was on contingent liability.

The Tribunal did not uphold every pleaded allegation. It found no race discrimination in the initial decision to go straight to a formal investigation, in requiring the first investigation interview before disclosure of documents, in the accuracy of the first interview notes, in Ms Palmer’s appeal-stage handling of the discrimination complaints, or in her decision to downgrade the sanction to a first written warning. It also found that the challenged failure to follow through on post-appeal steps was not made out because Ms Palmer did in fact take steps to address the concerns.

On time limits, the Tribunal held that the proven conduct formed a continuing course of conduct beginning in November 2018 and continuing when proceedings were issued in November 2020, so the claim was in time. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was left to a later hearing.