Mrs Dhatri Kodanadu Sundaresh v Limejump Limited — 2020

Mrs Dhatri Kodanadu Sundaresh was employed as a paralegal on a six-month fixed-term contract from 26 March 2018. The tribunal heard age and race harassment claims, victimisation, and unfair constructive dismissal, and decided liability only. It found that the working relationship with Ms Duygu Tanisik deteriorated after the 26 April 2018 telephone call and that the later events included emails, a complaint to the CEO on 26 June 2018, and a disciplinary process in July 2018.

On harassment, the tribunal found that Ms Tanisik had said the comments 'you’re such a baby' and 'new generation', and may also have referred to the claimant as 'young' or 'junior', but held that those remarks were not made with the purpose or effect required by section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. It treated them as comments about youth or experience, and said mild offence was not enough. The separate race allegation, that Ms Tanisik said 'I know you are an Indian. I am familiar with Indian culture, I don’t know why you are being so sensitive', was rejected because the tribunal found that comment was not made.

On victimisation, the tribunal treated the claimant's 27 April 2018 email, 22 June 2018 email, and 26 June 2018 complaint to the CEO as protected acts, although it found some allegations were made in bad faith. Most of the alleged detriments were dismissed: the probation extension, the informal complaint handling, the settlement proposal, the return of documents, and the later complaints made by Ms Tanisik were not found to be victimisation. The tribunal did, however, hold that inviting the claimant to a disciplinary hearing on 20 July 2018, without first adequately addressing her grievance complaints, was materially influenced by the protected act and therefore amounted to victimisation.

The unfair constructive dismissal claim succeeded on the same point. The tribunal held that the invitation to disciplinary proceedings, in the context of an unresolved grievance process, was a fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence and was part of the reason the claimant resigned on 23 July 2018. It found the earlier matters individually or cumulatively did not amount to a fundamental breach. No remedy was determined in this judgment; a remedy hearing was to be listed, and the tribunal made only a preliminary observation that loss of earnings was unlikely to extend beyond the original fixed-term end date absent further evidence.