Ms. D. James v Respondent — 2024

Ms D. James, a local government officer aged 63, complained about the handling of her December 2022 grievance about the conduct of a male colleague, P. The tribunal considered whether Sam Walker’s April 2023 investigation decisions and Nathaniel Baker’s June 2023 appeal decisions amounted to less favourable treatment because of age and sex. Mr Walker decided not to investigate P’s comments about the claimant, recommended mediation, and Mr Baker later recommended a working protocol after the claimant appealed.

The tribunal accepted that it would have been preferable for the claimant to have been shown P’s annotations before the grievance report was finalised, and it noted that mediation and a working protocol had been suggested. It nevertheless found no facts from which it could infer that age or sex played any part in either decision. It accepted Mr Walker’s evidence that the working relationship had broken down, that both parties found each other difficult to work with, and that mediation was a normal management response to that situation.

Applying section 13, section 23 and section 136 of the Equality Act 2010, together with the authorities it cited including Igen v Wong, Anya v University of Oxford, Laing v Manchester City Council, Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Griffiths-Henry, and Madarrassy v Nomura International Ltd, the tribunal held that the claimant had not proved less favourable treatment because of age or sex. It also found that the recommendation of a working protocol was a reasonable next step where mediation was not accepted and was not imposed on the claimant. The age and sex discrimination claims were dismissed and no financial remedy was awarded.