In person For v Respondent — 2025

The claimant was a casual tennis coach at Battersea Park Millennium Arena from 2012, and the case concerned direct sex discrimination and victimisation allegations arising from the end of her Monday drop-in role, the operation of 9-day booking priority, the later Tuesday children's session, pay for that session, a photoshoot, access to the well-being team, grievance handling, and closure of her work email. The tribunal held that most complaints relating to events before 2 June 2023 were out of time. It found the alleged acts were separate incidents rather than a continuing course of conduct and declined to extend time, except for the 11 April 2023 email allegation, which it said crystallised on disclosure and was allowed out of time on a just and equitable basis.

On the sex discrimination claim, the tribunal found the Monday session had become loss making and that the claimant was removed because only one coach was needed, not because she was a woman. It held that the 9-day booking arrangement was tied to coaching sessions for the respondent and that the male coaches relied on by the claimant were either not proper comparators or were treated under the same general policy. It rejected the complaints about not advertising the Tuesday class, the pay dispute for that class, the photoshoot, the ending of the Tuesday session, and access to the well-being team, finding no evidential basis for less favourable treatment because of sex and no prima facie case to shift the burden of proof.

On victimisation, the tribunal held that the September 2022 pay complaint and the 25 April 2023 email were protected acts, while the 6 April 2023 email was not. It found that Mr Gouveia's 11 April 2023 email to HR did not amount to a detriment because it reflected his concern about the claimant's allegations and did not affect her treatment or grievance. The tribunal also found that Ms Williams's response, the closure of the claimant's work email as part of a routine IT process, and the failure of the then new HR manager to deal with the grievance were not shown to be detrimental treatment because of protected acts. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.