Mrs AM Bainbridge (née Senior) v Employers Network for Equality and Inclusion — 2023

Mrs AM Bainbridge (née Senior) was employed by The Employers Network for Equality and Inclusion as an Executive Development Consultant from 7 March 2016. Her employment ended by reason of redundancy on 31 December 2019. She brought claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Equality Act 2010 alleging unfair dismissal, disability, race and sex discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal dismissed the claims in their entirety.

On the disability-related allegations, the tribunal rejected the claimant's account of a July 2018 conversation in which Mr Okuyiga was said to have referred to her MS/disability and criticised her work. It found he did not refer to her disability, and it did not accept that the alleged comments were made. The tribunal also rejected the reasonable adjustments claim. It found that the claimant did not prove she asked Mr Okuyiga for the alleged adjustments in January 2019, that the later hotdesking arrangement did not put disabled staff at a substantial disadvantage because all staff lacked fixed workstations, and that once specific adjustment needs were raised in September 2019 Mr Miah arranged an assessment, involved Access to Work, and acted proactively. The tribunal therefore found no failure to make reasonable adjustments.

The tribunal found that the respondent's October 2019 restructure created a genuine redundancy situation. It held that the claimant's post was genuinely at risk, that she was in a pool of one because her role was unique, that consultation was adequate and was extended several times, and that there was no suitable alternative vacancy for her. It accepted the respondent's explanation that the restructure was not predetermined and found the dismissal was fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. The tribunal also rejected the allegation that the CEO was appointed to hear the grievance as an act of race discrimination, finding her involvement was administrative only.

The direct discrimination and victimisation claims failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant's selection for redundancy or dismissal was because of race, sex, disability, or protected acts. It found Ms Carey was not a proper comparator, the other suggested comparators were in different roles, and there was no conspiracy to remove the claimant. No remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed.