Case 3305601/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3305601/2020
- Decision date
- 8 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
- Panel members
- Miss Hamill, Mr W Dykes
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs H Needham worked for The Groundwork South Trust Ltd as a River Project Officer on a fixed-term contract from 27 August 2019 to 4 April 2020. The tribunal heard complaints of age and sex discrimination, harassment, and victimisation, and dismissed all claims. It found that the claimant had not shown treatment because of age or sex, and that her January 2020 complaints did not amount to protected acts for victimisation purposes.
Applying the burden-of-proof approach from Barton and the comparator analysis discussed in Jarrett, Zafar, Igen, Anya and Sharmoon, the tribunal accepted that Mr White sometimes spoke sharply or bluntly and that several incidents occurred, including the app-data issue on 30 August 2019, the volunteer-training incidents in October 2019, the budget discussion in November 2019, and the January 2020 meetings. It rejected the allegations that the claimant had been sidelined in planning meetings or treated dismissively about lifting activities, and found the more likely explanation was Mr White's direct management style, the claimant's relative newness to the role, and occasions when he perceived her as challenging or correcting him.
For the direct discrimination complaints, the tribunal found that the relevant hypothetical comparator would have been treated the same, including an older male project officer on a fixed-term contract, so the conduct was not less favourable treatment and was not because of age or sex. It held that the conduct was unwanted, but not related to age or sex, so the harassment complaints also failed.
The victimisation claim failed because the tribunal held that the claimant's complaints to Ms Valman on 9 and 28 January 2020 and to Mr Pomeroy on 31 January 2020 were complaints about bullying and workplace problems, but did not allege discrimination or any other contravention of the Equality Act 2010. Because all claims failed, no remedy was awarded and the tribunal made no determination on the time-limit issues or the alleged victimisation detriments.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal accepted that some sharp or blunt management incidents occurred, including on 30 August 2019, 8 October 2019, 12 November 2019, 28 January 2020 and 30 January 2020, but found they were not less favourable treatment and would have been meted out to a hypothetical older male project officer in materially similar circumstances. It held the conduct was due to Mr White's management style, the claimant's newness to the role, and clashes over her suggestions, not age. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal accepted that some sharp or blunt management incidents occurred, including on 30 August 2019, 8 October 2019, 12 November 2019, 28 January 2020 and 30 January 2020, but found they were not less favourable treatment and would have been meted out to a hypothetical older male project officer in materially similar circumstances. It held the conduct was due to Mr White's management style, the claimant's newness to the role, and clashes over her suggestions, not sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found the conduct complained of was unwanted, but it was not related to age and therefore did not satisfy the harassment claim. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found the conduct complained of was unwanted, but it was not related to sex and therefore did not satisfy the harassment claim. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal held that the claimant's complaints to Ms Valman and Mr Pomeroy in January 2020 did not amount to protected acts because they did not suggest age or sex discrimination, or any other contravention of the Equality Act 2010. As a result, the alleged detriments and time-limit issues were not determined. |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.123(1)(a)&(b) Equality Act 2010
- Barton v Investec Henderson Crossthwaite Securities Ltd [2003] ICR 1205
- Essex County Council v Jarrett EAT 0045/15
- Glasgow City Council v Zafar [1998] ICR 120
- Igen Ltd (formerly Leeds Careers Guidance) and others v Wong [2005] ICR 931
- Anya v University of Oxford & another [2001] ICR 847
- Sharmoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337
- Beneviste v Kingston University EAT 0393/05
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.