Ms M Zigah v St Teresa’s Catholic Primary School and The Rosary Trust — 2022

Ms Zigah worked as a kitchen assistant at St Teresa's Catholic Primary School within the Rosary Trust. The case arose from events after a September 2019 disagreement involving Simone, then the January 2020 return of Simone to work, and the School's response to allegations that the Claimant had threatened violence towards Ms Chapman. The tribunal accepted that Mrs Kelly misread the Claimant's messages and wrongly concluded that the Claimant had been dishonest, but found that this was not because of race.

On the race discrimination and harassment claims, the tribunal found that the January 2020 complaint from Simone, Ela and Julia, and the decision to start a disciplinary investigation, were not related to race. It found that the colleagues believed the Claimant had been two-faced in her dealings with them, that the difficult atmosphere in the kitchen followed Simone's return, and that there were no primary facts from which race could be inferred. The alleged 'shower' comment was found not to have been made.

The tribunal accepted that Ms Harris's disciplinary investigation had shortcomings, including reliance on Mrs Kelly's account and some hearsay material, but held that those failings were not because of race. It found that the suspension was maintained only while the School considered there was a risk of contact with Ms Chapman and later while the pandemic arrangements were being managed, and that the grievance investigation and outcome were not discriminatory. The grievance appeal and the later document requests were also not found to involve refusal, delay, or adverse treatment because of race or victimisation.

The victimisation claim failed because, although the relevant protected acts were conceded, the tribunal found that the suspension, investigation, grievance outcome and dismissal were not caused by those acts. The dismissal on 29 August 2020 was found to be due to the Claimant's prolonged unauthorised absence and failure to reply to repeated requests to return to work after her suspension had been lifted and after the grievance and appeal process had concluded. The tribunal held that a white employee in the same position would have been treated in the same way.

For the protected disclosure dismissal claim, the tribunal assumed in the Claimant's favour that the matters relied on could amount to protected disclosures, but held that the sole reason for dismissal was still the unauthorised absence and refusal to engage with the School. The sex discrimination, ordinary unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages and protected-disclosure detriment claims had been withdrawn and were dismissed upon withdrawal. No monetary award was made.