In Person For the v A Bibia (litigation consultant – Peninsula) — 2025

Ms Ndlovu, a live-in carer employed by Hales Group Limited, brought claims of direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, and victimisation. The tribunal applied sections 13, 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010, with the burden of proof under section 136 and the approach in Igen v Wong and Madarassy v Nomura International PLC. It also recorded the section 123 time-limit issue, but resolved the substantive claims on the evidence before it.

The tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation that live-in carers and visiting carers were paid differently because the roles were different. Ms Ndlovu accepted a live-in contract in April 2017 for 16 paid hours per day at £7.50 per hour. The tribunal found no evidence that she was the only black employee at the Wickford branch on 9 May 2017, and no evidence that the pay differential was based on race.

Across the annual uplift and holiday-pay complaints from 2018 to 2023, the tribunal found repeated administrative errors and delays, but not race discrimination. It held that the claimant was not paid the new minimum rate in some years until she raised it, but the respondent's explanation was that her live-in role was paid on different terms from visiting carers and required manual adjustment. Where the respondent later increased or backdated pay, or adjusted holiday calculations, those decisions were treated as corrections or goodwill measures rather than admissions of discrimination.

The tribunal also rejected the allegations about the July 2023 discharge email, the comparison with Lisa Osborne's pay for the week commencing 24 April 2023, and the alleged favouring of white colleagues with gifts or recognition. It found that the claimant was sent a fuller follow-up email shortly after the brief update to the cover carers, that Lisa Osborne's higher pay in two weeks was an error by the respondent, and that there was no evidence that only white staff received presents, flowers or certificates. The direct discrimination and harassment claims were therefore dismissed.

On victimisation, the protected act was the issuing of the present claim on 15 February 2024. The tribunal upheld only the June 2024 noticeboard allegation: the claimant's photograph was displayed without her name or job title while other staff entries were identified, and that was found to be detrimental treatment linked to the claim. The remaining victimisation allegations failed because the KS care-package review had taken place, the app and payslip mismatch was not shown to be linked to the claim, the January 2025 e-learning modules were deleted because they had been allocated in error, and the 45-minute training-module payment was found to reflect an existing policy with exceptions before the protected act. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was listed for a later hearing.