Miss Zarah Kamaly v London Borough of Tower Hamlets — 2022

The Claimant had complained in writing on 11 June 2019 that matters following her return from maternity leave amounted to maternity discrimination. The Respondent accepted, and the Tribunal found, that this grievance was a protected act. The Tribunal also found that Ms McInnes believed the Claimant might bring an Employment Tribunal claim under the Equality Act 2010.

The Tribunal found four detriments in the grievance handling: failure to clarify when the new SC6 post was introduced, failure to clarify differences between the Claimant's role before and after maternity leave, failure to reach any conclusion on discrimination, and failure to implement a formal grievance process. It accepted the Respondent's explanation for the first two detriments as lack of thoroughness in an under-resourced context rather than victimisation.

The Tribunal upheld the victimisation claim in two respects. It rejected the explanation that failing to address the central discrimination allegation was an oversight, and found that failing to implement a formal process was not adequately or consistently explained. It concluded that those two failures were because of the protected act or the belief that the Claimant might do a further protected act. The other victimisation complaints were dismissed, and remedy was left to a separate hearing.