Case 3203214/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Kelly Arnold v Select Enterprises (South East) Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3203214/2021
- Decision date
- 23 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barrett Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Miss M Daniels, Mr L O'Callaghan
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss Kelly Arnold
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Barrett, sitting with members Miss M Daniels and Mr L O'Callaghan, heard this matter at the East London Hearing Centre over six days in October 2024. The claimant Miss Kelly Arnold was represented by her father Mr Stewart Arnold; the respondents (Select Enterprises (South East) Limited t/a Kids Inc Nurseries, and Mrs Balvinder Kalsi) were represented by Mr Marc Ramsbottom of Peninsula UK. The claimant had worked for the First Respondent from 5 January 2015 until her resignation on 10 April 2021; events giving rise to the claim occurred in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Tribunal found the First Respondent had constructively unfairly dismissed the claimant. The remedy is to be determined at a separate hearing. The claimant's complaints of direct sexual orientation discrimination, harassment related to sexual orientation, harassment related to disability and discrimination arising from disability against both respondents were not well-founded and were dismissed.
In relation to the harassment claims, the Tribunal applied the broader 'related to' causal test under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 (UNITE the Union v Nailard) but found nothing to suggest sexual orientation formed any part of the respondents' motivation. The single allegation of disability-related harassment (Mrs May's email of 23 March 2021 containing 18 questions) was found to be unwanted but, applying Land Registry v Grant, would not reasonably have the prescribed effect on the claimant. The discrimination arising from disability claim failed on causation, the email having been sent in connection with the claimant's stress/depression absence rather than her back condition. PDF truncated from 130,172 to 15,000 chars, so the summary is necessarily incomplete.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal upheld against First Respondent. Remedy hearing to be listed separately. PDF text truncated from 130,172 to 15,000 chars. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Direct sexual orientation discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sexual orientation dismissed: tribunal found the conduct alleged was not related to sexual orientation. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability (the 23 March 2021 email containing 18 questions) dismissed: conduct would not reasonably have the effect required by the statutory test. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability dismissed on causation: no causal link between symptoms of the back condition / medication and the email of 23 March 2021. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal [2009] ICR 724
- Land Registry v Grant [2011] ICR 1390
- UNITE the Union v Nailard [2018] IRLR 730
- Amnesty International v Ahmed [2009] IRLR 884
- Noorani v Merseyside TEC Ltd [1999] IRLR 184
- Dada v Metal Box Co Ltd [1974] ICR 559
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.