in person For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant, a black British student health visitor, worked for the respondent from 28 January 2019 until her dismissal on 17 September 2019. She brought claims of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race, relying on 25 alleged acts by her practice tutors and others during her training. The tribunal also noted that a victimisation complaint had been withdrawn earlier in the proceedings, and that the claimant’s attempt to amend the claim had been refused.

The tribunal found that the claimant’s early reviews recorded performance concerns, including inconsistent practice and difficulties engaging with feedback. It accepted that an action plan was put in place on 17 May 2019 because of those concerns, that the claimant remained on the action plan after the change of tutor, and that later meetings continued to raise performance and safety issues. The tribunal found that the request to change tutor was dealt with within a reasonable time, that the later decision not to continue the claimant on the course was based on documented concerns about her readiness to work independently, and that the probation review and appeal process did not support the claimant’s account of discriminatory treatment.

On the individual allegations, the tribunal rejected most of the alleged incidents as not having occurred as claimed, or found that they were normal supervision or development discussions arising from the claimant’s performance. Where it found that comments or actions did occur, it held that they were not because of race and were not unwanted conduct related to race. The tribunal also stepped back and considered the case as a whole, including the comparator evidence and the background position that black and minority ethnic staff were under-represented, but found no evidence that the claimant had been held to higher standards than white colleagues.

Applying section 13, section 26 and section 136 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had not shown facts from which it could properly infer race discrimination or harassment. It found that the treatment complained of occurred because the claimant’s performance did not meet the standard required for the student health visitor role, and that the respondent’s decision to terminate her employment was not because of race or related to race. The claims were therefore dismissed in full, and no award was made.