Jasmine Dodd v Harwoods Limited — 2020

Jasmine Dodd worked for Harwoods Limited as a showroom host from 16 January 2017 until her dismissal on 12 October 2018. At the start of the hearing she withdrew her breach of contract and unpaid holiday pay claims. The tribunal dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996, but upheld the whistleblowing detriment claim under s.47B ERA 1996 and the victimisation claim under s.27 Equality Act 2010.

During employment the claimant raised concerns about bullying and harassment of the reception team and about sales staff refusing to serve Asian and Indian customers. The tribunal found the bullying and harassment complaints were protected disclosures, but the single complaint about Mr King was personal in nature and not made in the public interest. It found that the race discrimination complaint made to Mr Harwood in 2017 and again in February 2018 was both a protected disclosure and, for Equality Act purposes, a protected act. The October 2018 complaints were too vague to qualify, and the later sex discrimination allegation was unsupported by facts.

The meeting of 4 October 2018 was found to be a detriment because it conveyed criticism of the claimant's performance and a move towards supervision without proper notice of what would be discussed. However, the tribunal found that this treatment was not because she had made protected disclosures or protected acts. On the evidence, dismissal was instead because of her reaction to that meeting, her subsequent sickness absence, and the respondent's wish to distance itself from the Dowzer grievance.

After dismissal, the claimant complained about the grievance outcome and appeal handling. The tribunal found the grievance investigation was cursory, that the outcome letter falsely stated no bullying, harassment or racism had been found despite corroborative evidence, and that the respondent refused to hear an appeal. It held that those post-termination acts were done because the claimant had made protected disclosures and a protected act, and that the ACAS Code was breached. The case was listed for a remedy hearing and no monetary award was fixed in this judgment.