Ms Jeantia Christie Pepa-Nsana v Nottinghamshire County Council — 2021

Ms Pepa-Nsana, who describes herself as black, was employed by Nottinghamshire County Council from 14 September 2004 and remained employed at the date of the hearing, having been redeployed in May 2022. She brought claims of direct race discrimination, victimisation and less favourable treatment as a part-time worker. The tribunal found that all race discrimination and victimisation complaints before 2 December 2021 were presented out of time. It rejected the argument that events from 2008 onward formed a continuing act, and held that it was not just and equitable to extend time, noting the length of delay, faded memories, the claimant's representation by her union for much of the period, and its assessment of the merits.

The tribunal considered the race discrimination allegations in the alternative on their merits. It preferred the respondent's evidence where there was conflict and found that the claimant had not shown facts from which it could infer that the alleged treatment was because of race. The tribunal found, among other matters, that the respondent accepted an explanation for additional leave in 2008, that adoption leave was not supported by the documents requested, that training arrangements were affected by maternity leave, sickness absence and reduced hours, that the claimant was given leave in 2020 after discussions, and that a January 2021 discussion about work output was a reasonable step by her line manager to identify training or support needs.

The only race discrimination allegation within time concerned the 2 December 2021 grievance appeal outcome letter. The tribunal found that the respondent's informal and formal employee resolution processes investigated the claimant's complaints and that the appeal outcome found no evidence of discrimination. It concluded that the 2 December 2021 allegation was not well-founded.

The victimisation claim relied on complaints said to be protected acts in 2008, 2013 and February 2021 and on the same alleged detriments as the race discrimination claim. The tribunal held that, even assuming protected acts, it was not satisfied the claimant had suffered the alleged detriments and dismissed the victimisation claim. The part-time worker claim was also dismissed: the tribunal recorded that it was not pursued in substance, that no submissions were made on it, and that the comparator identified for lack of training was also a part-time worker. No remedy was awarded.