Miss A Williams v Nottingham City Homes Limited FINAL HEARING — 2019

Miss A Williams, who is black and of African Caribbean descent, worked for Nottingham City Homes Limited as a Customer Service Adviser from November 2007. Her claim concerned alleged direct race discrimination about development and promotion opportunities from 2013 to 2018, alleged victimisation arising from her August 2018 grievance and later tribunal claims, and constructive unfair dismissal after she resigned on 23 December 2019 following the grievance appeal outcome.

The tribunal dismissed the race discrimination complaints. It held that all of the discrimination complaints pre-dated 15 May 2018 and were therefore out of time, and it refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. On the merits, it found no valid basis for inferring that race caused the treatment complained of. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the claimant had development opportunities, including Aspire to Manage and mentoring by Mr Pashley, and that the promotion and acting-up decisions were explained by interview performance, sickness absence targets, resource levels, and practical staffing considerations rather than race.

The tribunal also rejected the victimisation claim. It accepted that the claimant's first protected act was her grievance of 9 August 2018, with later protected acts being her tribunal claims, so the earlier absence-management and development complaints could only succeed if management thought she might make a protected act. It found no evidence that they did. The later correspondence, grievance investigation and appeal were found to be legitimate responses to the claimant's absence and her lack of engagement, not detriments imposed because of protected acts.

The constructive dismissal claim failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the matters relied on, whether separately or together, amounted to a fundamental breach of the trust and confidence term. It found that the main issues, including the handling of the succession plan, the appointment of Miss Dennis, and the grievance process, were either too remote by the time of resignation, had been affirmed, or were supported by reasonable and proper cause. The tribunal made no monetary award.