Case 3305042/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Adams, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305042/2022
- Decision date
- 20 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Members
- Venue
- Norwich
- Panel members
- Mrs Buck, Mr Lynch
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr D Adams, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs A Ashaye worked for National Fostering Group Limited from 3 July 2014 and resigned with effect from 1 February 2022. She brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal, direct sex and race discrimination, and notice pay. She later raised a grievance about the lack of a development plan, the exit package and alleged discrimination; it was investigated and the appeal was unsuccessful.
On discrimination, the tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the complained-of treatment was because she was a black Nigerian woman. It found that no development plan followed the November 2020 Regional Director interview because she had not contacted Mr Christie for a detailed feedback meeting; that Mr McCarthy was seconded to the trial Assistant Regional Director role for objective operational reasons linked to the proposed split of the region, the trial cluster and the state of the claimant's own agency; that the January 2022 sick-pay issue followed the contractual entitlement to 10 days' full pay and no request for a discretionary extension had been made; and that there had been no established failure to respond to a request to waive the restrictive covenant.
On constructive dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent's welfare checks during sickness absence, the appointment of an interim registered manager after the claimant had been absent for more than 28 days, the email to staff about her absence and the request for GP information were reasonable and did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract or destroy trust and confidence. It therefore dismissed the constructive dismissal claim and also dismissed the notice pay claim. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant's resignation was not caused by a fundamental breach of contract or a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found the welfare checks, interim manager appointment, staff email and GP request were reasonable in context. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim. The tribunal found the absence of a development plan, the secondment of Mr McCarthy, the January 2022 sick-pay issue and the restrictive-covenant point were not because the claimant was a woman. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim. The tribunal found the same alleged treatment was not because the claimant was black or Nigerian. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim. The judgment does not set out a separate reasons section for this claim, but it was dismissed in the final order. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- s.95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Limited v Sharp [1978] IRLR 27
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.
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.