Miss Jones v DePaul UK and 3 others — 2019

Miss Jones, a black woman, was employed by DePaul UK from 27 October 2013 and later managed Nightstop London and then Alone in London. The tribunal accepted that she was a capable and committed manager in some respects, but also found that there were real performance concerns at times, particularly around budget management, reporting, and delivery against the London Youth Gateway contract. It also found that some management issues were handled poorly, including the absence of formal supervision under Mr Smith and the way the January 2019 performance management process was introduced.

The direct race, sex and age discrimination claims were dismissed. The tribunal rejected the allegation that Mr Smith sought to remove her because of race or sex, or that she was excluded from strategic meetings for a discriminatory reason. It found that the probation concerns in April 2014, the later criticism of reporting, the audit of Alone in London, the Client H enquiries and the PIP were explained by performance concerns, seniority of the meetings, contract scrutiny and workload rather than protected characteristics. The allegation that Mr Smith wanted to replace her with Isabel was rejected.

On harassment related to race, the tribunal accepted that the 'white man in a suit' comment by Mr Smith and the 'ginger lives matter' comment by Ms Murphy were unwanted and related to race. It nevertheless held that, in context, neither remark crossed the statutory threshold because they were isolated comments made in the heat of the moment or as an off-the-cuff remark, and any offence was judged to be ephemeral rather than a proscribed environment. The tribunal also found that Mr Smith's failure to apologise for the remark, and Ms Murphy's later apology to Ms Morris about her comment, did not amount to harassment.

The constructive dismissal claim was also dismissed. The tribunal identified the claimant's reasons for resigning as the audit, the Client H enquiries, the PIP, and the response to the lone-working/on-call incident, but held that each had a reasonable explanation and that, taken together, they did not amount to a repudiatory breach of trust and confidence. It also found that the claimant affirmed the contract by her 24 January 2019 email saying she would continue working towards the targets. No remedy was awarded.