Ms S Henry v St Mungo Community Housing Association — 2021

Ms Henry was employed by St Mungo Community Housing Association as a Service Administrator and resigned on 22 October 2021. She brought complaints of constructive unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, and victimisation. The tribunal identified three of the four alleged protected acts for victimisation as protected acts under section 27(2)(d) Equality Act 2010, but found that the 18 January 2021 email about BAME network feedback was no more than a criticism of the respondent for not taking advice forward.

The constructive dismissal complaint was dismissed. The tribunal considered the pleaded matters about flexible working, personal development, the claimant’s last day before secondment, an informal warning, appraisal feedback, presentation images, safe space concerns, change of manager, grievance handling and return-to-work processes. It found that none of those matters, separately or cumulatively, came close to breaching the implied term of trust and confidence. The tribunal said Ms Tuffin’s email of 19 October 2021, identified by the claimant as the last straw, was a response to the claimant and was wholly innocuous in the constructive dismissal context.

The direct race discrimination and harassment related to race complaints were dismissed. For the flexible working allegations, the tribunal found that the respondent’s decisions reflected perceived business needs and that the named comparator was not in materially the same circumstances because working from home had been allowed as a reasonable adjustment. For the personal development allegations, it found there had been no downgrading or demotion. For the alleged isolation, informal warning, safe space and grievance-related matters, it found no direct evidence and no evidence from which it could infer race discrimination or harassment related to race.

The victimisation complaint was also dismissed. The tribunal found that the personal development allegations pre-dated the first protected act and could not be victimisation as a matter of law. It found no detriment or causation in the respondent’s handling of the informal warning, anonymous appraisal feedback, presentation images, safe space concerns, senior management involvement, change of manager or alleged constructive dismissal. No remedy was awarded because all claims failed and were dismissed.