Mr D Dotting For the v Respondent — 2024

The tribunal heard two related claims together and first fixed a final list of issues because the pleaded case was difficult to identify. It refused most late amendment applications, including attempts to add new protected acts and a new recruitment-policy discrimination claim, applying Selkent. It allowed only the protected acts connected with the 2 July 2021 grievance and the 11 June 2022 grievance to proceed, together with a limited allegation against Mr Barton about the grievance dealing process.

On the facts, the claimant was a teaching assistant. The tribunal accepted she was disabled by sciatica from late April 2022, and that the respondent had knowledge from the occupational health report of 25 May 2022. It held that the 6 October 2020 statement was not a protected act, that the 2 July 2021 and 11 June 2022 grievances were protected acts, and that the 18 November 2022 grievance against Mr Alan Jones was not. It also found the recruitment-policy material relied on by the claimant was a discussion document rather than evidence of a discriminatory policy.

The direct discrimination complaints were dismissed. The tribunal accepted Ms Rachel Jones shouted at the claimant on 6 October 2020 and at the March 2021 mediation, but found her reaction was to the claimant's conduct towards a student and her belief that the claimant had behaved negatively towards her because of her sexuality, not because of race, religion, age or disability. The tribunal also found all allegations against Ms Jones were out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. Later complaints about grievance handling, the June 2022 meeting, the data-breach emails, the OFSTED link, the disciplinary process and the grievance appeal were found to have non-discriminatory explanations.

The disability-related complaints, including failure to make reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability, also failed. The tribunal found the 8 June 2022 meeting did take place, the occupational health report was considered, and the phased return was implemented. It held the without prejudice retirement discussion was an open attempt to find a solution and did not amount to unfavourable treatment, and that the claimant had not identified any adjustment that should have been made. The victimisation and harassment complaints failed for the same reason: the tribunal found the later treatment was not because of the protected acts and that the explanations given by the respondent defeated the claims. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.