Case 2500254/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Davison v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500254/2018
- Decision date
- 14 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Members
- Venue
- Newcastle Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr S Carter, Mrs D Winter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Davison
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of race discrimination, race-related harassment and victimisation, and later disability discrimination claims including direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's grievance and tribunal proceedings were protected acts, and found that the claimant was disabled from 28 March 2018, with the respondent knowing or reasonably expected to know of the disability from that date.
On the race claims, the tribunal found that the respondent's witnesses gave credible and persuasive explanations for the management decisions and grievance handling complained of. It found that the claimant had not proved less favourable treatment because of race, that the alleged harassment either did not occur as alleged or was not related to race, and that the alleged victimisation was not because of protected acts.
On the disability claims, the tribunal found that incidents before 28 March 2018 could not establish disability discrimination on the claimant's own case as to knowledge. It found that the respondent did take steps to find the claimant an alternative role, that delays were explained by restrictions arising from a grievance upheld against the claimant and by the claimant's own limits on roles she would consider, and that the claimant had not established a relevant provision, criterion or practice placing her at substantial disadvantage. All complaints of unlawful race and disability discrimination were dismissed as not well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination allegations were dismissed; the tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Race-related harassment allegations were dismissed; the tribunal found the alleged conduct either did not occur as alleged or was not related to race and did not satisfy section 26 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation allegations relying on the claimant's grievance and tribunal proceedings as protected acts were dismissed; the tribunal found the alleged detriments were not because of protected acts. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments complaints were dismissed. Some disability allegations were withdrawn during the hearing; the adjudicated complaints were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The claimant repeated victimisation allegations in the disability claim; the tribunal dismissed them for the same factual reasons as the race victimisation allegations. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
20 references- Rule 50 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Selkent principles
- Section 4 Equality Act 2010
- Section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Section 9 Equality Act 2010
- Section 13 Equality Act 2010
- Section 15 Equality Act 2010
- Sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- Section 26 Equality Act 2010
- Section 27 Equality Act 2010
- Section 39 Equality Act 2010
- Section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Bahl v Law Society [2004] EWCA 1070
- Barton v Investec [2003] IRLR 332
- Land Registry v Grant [2011] EWCA Civ 769
- Igen Ltd v Wong [2005] ICR 931
- Laing v Manchester City Council [2006] ICR 1519
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc [2007] ICR 867
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] ICR 1054
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.