Ms Lucy de Matteis v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2022

The claimant, a prison officer, accepted that she told prisoner AB that if he got into a box, a warning would be forgotten about. The tribunal accepted that she intended this as banter and did not intend distress, but found that the prisoner did not take it that way and had complained that he felt bullied, humiliated and pressured. The respondent investigated, suspended the claimant on full pay, treated the matter as potential gross misconduct, and imposed a three-year final written warning rather than dismissal.

On direct sex discrimination, the tribunal found that the suspension, gross misconduct classification, investigation and disciplinary outcome were not because of sex. It found the proposed comparators were not materially comparable, including Governor De Matteis, Officer KJ, and Governor Juden, because the circumstances differed and prisoner AB had not complained about Governor Juden's comment at the disciplinary hearing. The tribunal accepted evidence that the same steps would have been taken if the relevant staff members had been male or female.

On the grievance and appeal allegations, the tribunal found there was no failure to deal with the claimant's grievance because it overlapped with the disciplinary appeal and the claimant agreed to revisit it after the appeal, then chose to proceed with tribunal proceedings. It rejected the allegation that Governor Phelps tried to deter the claimant from pursuing legal rights. The tribunal also accepted that Mr Monaghan upheld the disciplinary outcome because he considered the warning appropriate, and that he did not know of the protected acts when reaching his appeal decision.