Mr Mullins, Counsel For the v Mr A Brett, Solicitor — 2018

The Claimant, a black woman of South African national origin, worked as a social worker in the Looked After Children’s Team from 21 January 2018 until she resigned on 31 August 2018. She alleged direct race discrimination and harassment arising from a series of work-management, performance, and safeguarding incidents. The tribunal identified the pleaded matter as a race discrimination case, particularly direct discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 and harassment under section 26.

The tribunal first held that the claim was out of time. The claim was filed on 15 January 2019, the last alleged act was 30 August 2018, and with early conciliation running from 15 November to 15 December 2018 the ordinary deadline was 14 January 2019. It found the individual allegations were separate acts rather than a continuing course of conduct, and it declined to extend time because the Claimant had union representation, knew about time limits, and no sufficient reason for delay was advanced.

In case it was wrong on time limits, the tribunal went through each allegation on the merits and rejected them. It found the Claimant was a newly qualified social worker who was eased into the role, co-worked cases, and had her caseload built up gradually. The criticisms on 31 July, 2 August, 8 August, 14 August, 22 August and 30 August 2018 were found to arise from genuine concerns about urgency, confidentiality, safeguarding, team working, and professional competence, not race, colour or national origin. The tribunal accepted the Respondent’s evidence that the Claimant had been criticised and managed in the same way any other newly qualified social worker would have been if faced with the same performance and safeguarding issues.

The tribunal also noted that the grievance outcome found no evidence that Mapule had been treated differently because of race or ethnicity and described the Respondent’s actions as proportionate responses to poor performance and unsafe practice. It rejected the Claimant’s suggestion of an enforced resignation, finding that she resigned of her own volition rather than because the Respondent breached trust and confidence. All claims were therefore dismissed.