Case 2300846/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Fischer v London United Busways Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300846/2021
- Decision date
- 28 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Members
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mr C Mardner, Mr K Murphy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Fischer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a contract worker supplied as a bus driver, brought direct discrimination complaints relying on gender reassignment. The complaints concerned a bus yard incident on 9 January 2021, an alleged insult on 13 January 2021, and the termination of her engagement. The Tribunal accepted that the claimant had the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and that the respondent was a principal for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.
On the bus yard incident, the Tribunal reviewed CCTV and found that the driver waited while the claimant crossed most of the roadway and then manoeuvred around her. It found that the footage did not show the claimant was in danger of being hit, did not suggest malicious intent, and did not establish less favourable treatment because of gender reassignment.
On the alleged insult, the Tribunal found that the word alleged would not be gender-neutral if used, but the majority was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the incident occurred. The majority relied on inconsistencies in the claimant's accounts, the respondent's evidence about the claimant's perception of events, and the surrounding circumstances. A minority would have found that the incident occurred, but the majority decision meant the complaint failed.
On termination, the Tribunal found that the reasons relied on by the respondent were operative in the decision to end the engagement, including the hard braking incident, self-curtailment, the respondent's view of repeated unfounded complaints, the angry passenger incident, alleged misuse of the ibus system, and a service controller complaint. The Tribunal found those reasons were not because of gender reassignment and that the claimant had not established a prima facie case. It also considered, though it was not necessary to decide, that the respondent would not have established the all reasonable steps defence because further reasonable steps could have been taken on policies, training, inclusive communication and representative support.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender reassignment discrimination | Direct discrimination allegation concerning the 9 January 2021 bus yard incident. The Tribunal unanimously found that the CCTV did not show the claimant in danger of being hit or malicious intent by the driver, and that the claimant had not established facts from which discrimination could be inferred. | Dismissed | Gender reassignment | — |
| Gender reassignment discrimination | Direct discrimination allegation concerning the alleged use of the word "wanker" on 13 January 2021. The Tribunal considered that, if said, the term would be sufficient to establish a prima facie case, but by majority found that the alleged incident did not occur. | Dismissed | Gender reassignment | — |
| Gender reassignment discrimination | Direct discrimination allegation concerning termination of the claimant's engagement. The Tribunal unanimously found that the termination was for reasons including driving concerns, self-curtailment, complaints regarded by the respondent as unfounded, policy issues, and TfL/NMCC-related concerns, and was not because of gender reassignment. | Dismissed | Gender reassignment | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- Equality Act 2010 s.13
- Equality Act 2010 s.41
- Equality Act 2010 s.136
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Griffiths-Henry
- Laing v Manchester City Council
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd
- Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd
- Bennett v Mitac Europe Ltd
- Equality Act 2010 s.109(4)
- Allay (UK) Ltd v Gehlen
- Croft v Royal Mail Group plc
- Canniffe v East Riding of Yorkshire Council
- EHRC Employment Statutory Code of Practice
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.