Claimant v Respondent — 2021

The Claimant worked for the Respondent as a Family Support and Parenting Practitioner from 11 March 2013. After her husband was arrested in June 2018 following allegations made by their older daughter, the Respondent sought information from Borough X through its safeguarding processes, carried out a risk assessment, and suspended the Claimant on full pay. The tribunal accepted that the Respondent was dealing with serious safeguarding concerns about the Claimant's own parenting and the reports coming from Borough X, including that the children had been placed on a child protection plan and later became looked after children.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason: the safeguarding concerns, the Claimant's refusal or failure to cooperate with the Respondent's and Borough X's processes, and the Respondent's conclusion that trust and confidence had irretrievably broken down. It held that the dismissal engaged Article 8 rights but that the interference was in accordance with the law, pursued the legitimate aim of safeguarding children, and was proportionate. The tribunal also found the process fair, noted that the Claimant had been offered temporary redeployment, and concluded the decision fell within the range of reasonable responses.

The direct discrimination claims failed. On marriage, the tribunal accepted the investigating officer's reference to the Claimant being 'controlled' by her husband reflected her genuine impression from the meetings and did not drive the dismissal. On religion, the tribunal accepted that the HR Consultant's Bible reference on 20 March 2019 was made because the Claimant was Christian, but held that it was unwise rather than less favourable treatment and did not alter the meeting outcome. The discrimination arising from disability claim also failed because the tribunal found the suspension, disciplinary process, subject access request handling and dismissal were caused by the safeguarding concerns, not by the Claimant's sickness absence record.

The disability harassment claim failed on the merits and was also substantially out of time. The tribunal found the 2017 correspondence about phased return, pay and annual leave to be ordinary absence management rather than unwanted conduct with the requisite effect. On money claims, the tribunal found the Claimant had been overpaid on annual leave: it recorded a payment of £700.73, a pro rata entitlement calculation leading to £422.76, and concluded no further holiday pay was due. It also found notice pay had been underpaid by £11.32 on its calculation, but that the shortfall was offset by the holiday overpayment. All claims were dismissed.