Ms M Campbell v Department for Education — 2025

Ms Campbell worked for the Department for Education from 1 September 2023 in a probationary HEO/HRIS analyst role. The tribunal accepted the respondent's probation policy allowed six-month probation, monthly ABLE check-ins, formal reviews and, in appropriate circumstances, suspension of probation where there was sickness absence or a grievance to resolve. It also accepted that the claimant's managers were concerned about the verification of her Workday training, the quality of some work, and the need for closer management oversight.

In the first claim, the tribunal dismissed the direct age and race discrimination complaints about the month-one 'inconsistent' rating, delay in sending the three-month review, the PIP, objectives, training verification and work allocation decisions. It found those matters were explained by the probation guidance, the need to verify training, and the claimant's work and management issues, rather than by age or race. The separate harassment allegation about Ms Smith's 11 December 2023 Teams messages also failed because the tribunal found the messages were supportive and not unwanted conduct related to age or race.

The first claim's victimisation complaint also failed. The tribunal accepted the claimant had done protected acts by lodging a grievance on 17 January 2024 and issuing proceedings, but found the work allocation after her return from sick leave, the handling of the SAR and payroll matters, the 12 April 2024 meeting issue, the dismissal and the alleged delay in dealing with the second grievance were all explained by performance, operational or procedural reasons. It held that any adverse impact flowing from the breakdown in relationships with managers was separable from the fact that the claimant had made discrimination complaints.

In the second claim, the tribunal accepted that by May 2024 the claimant had menopausal symptoms, including brain fog, fatigue and mental health effects, and that those symptoms had a substantial adverse effect at that time. However, it was not satisfied that the condition was long-term or likely to satisfy the section 6 Equality Act definition of disability on the evidence available at the relevant time. As a result, the disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments claims failed. The tribunal also rejected the race and sex discrimination complaints about changes to duties, the suspension of probation, the decision to hold the probation meeting on 29 May 2024 while the claimant was off sick, the refusal of a further occupational health referral and the absence of a risk assessment, finding those matters were not shown to be because of race, sex or disability.

The tribunal found the claimant was unwell when the 29 May 2024 probation meeting went ahead and treated that as a detriment, but it held the decision to proceed was not connected to the protected characteristics or to the earlier grievances. It also rejected the breach of contract complaint, holding that the contract and probation policy allowed termination during probation and that no breach arose from the suspension and resumption of probation, the management of the hearing, or the appointments made to deal with the grievances and appeal. The wrongful dismissal complaint failed because the claimant received the five weeks' notice pay due under the contract. No remedy was awarded and both claim numbers were dismissed in full.