Ms. E. Onigbanjo v London Borough of Croydon — 2020

The claimant brought claims arising from her return from maternity leave, a fraud and disciplinary process, and her dismissal. The tribunal dismissed the pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaints. It found that the training issue was not because of maternity leave and that the restriction on building access was due to genuinely held concerns about honesty and integrity, not pregnancy or maternity.

The victimisation claim succeeded only in relation to a meeting with a senior HR employee, Mr Singh. The tribunal found the claimant was misled as to the purpose of the meeting, that the DBS issue was used as leverage in settlement discussions about her tribunal claim, and that the respondent had not called evidence to show the meeting was unrelated to protected acts. The tribunal dismissed the other victimisation allegations, finding that the fraud investigations were ongoing before the protected acts and that the disciplinary process and suspension were not caused by those acts.

The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The tribunal accepted that misconduct was the reason for dismissal, that the respondent had a reasonable basis for investigating housing, council tax and DBS matters, and that the disciplinary and appeal processes were fair and thorough. It found the respondent was entitled to treat the proven matters as gross misconduct in light of the claimant's social work role. The breach of contract claim was also dismissed because no contractual right to a grievance appeal was established.