In person For the v Mr T Fuller (Chartered Legal Executive) — 2021

The claimant worked as an HR Business Partner from 2 July 2018 to 27 July 2019. The tribunal found that her email of 6 June 2019 to Mr Pratt, warning that his comments about a female colleague's career choices after having children might contravene the Equality Act 2010, was a protected act for victimisation purposes. It accepted that the email was carefully worded and sent in her HR role, but found no evidence that it led to the later events relied on in the claim.

On victimisation, the tribunal rejected the allegation that the claimant was forced to resign on 27 June 2019. It found that Ms Hawley had genuine and documented concerns about the claimant's performance, especially time management and workload, and that those concerns pre-dated the 6 June email. The meeting on 27 June 2019 was found to be an informal meeting to raise those concerns and to explain that a formal performance process would follow if necessary; the claimant was given the option to resign, but was not forced to do so.

On direct sex discrimination, the tribunal held that the two incidents relied on, the strategy day incident in September 2018 and the proposal in October 2018 to move the claimant's employment from BDM to BAM, were out of time and there was no continuing act. It also considered the substance and found that Mr Pratt wanted the claimant to stay because HR business partners were needed for the restructuring discussion, not because she was a woman. The tribunal found JB was not a proper comparator because he had a different role and responsibilities, and it found no evidence that the proposal to change the employing entity, which was never implemented after the claimant objected, was linked to sex.