Ms Joanne Millington v Forensic Access Limited — 2020

The claimant, Ms Joanne Millington, was a forensic scientist who had worked for the respondent since 2012. The tribunal found that by 2017 her work covered both biology and the veterinary forensics joint venture, and that the respondent had initially accepted that she would retain her biology role while taking on the new veterinary role. By October 2017, however, Mr Arend had formed the view that her biology responsibilities should be removed and that Dr Stoll should take the Scientific Director role. The tribunal also found that Mr Arend spoke critically about the claimant to Dr Stoll, excluded or sought to exclude her from meetings, and raised concerns about her pay and outside activities even though Mr Owen knew of and had no issue with those matters.

The tribunal held that the meeting on 7 December 2017, together with earlier events, breached the implied term of trust and confidence. It found that Mr Arend gave inaccurate answers about whether he had spoken to Dr Stoll about the claimant, required her to attend a lengthy grievance meeting with the person against whom she had complained, and acted contrary to the respondent's harassment policy, which said effort would be made to protect an employee who complained of harassment from further acts of harassment. It concluded that Mr Arend's conduct at the 7 December meeting amounted to bullying and that the claimant resigned in response to that breach, so she was constructively dismissed.

Because there was no potentially fair reason for dismissal and the dismissal was not fair in all the circumstances, the tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim. It also upheld the claimant's notice-pay claim, holding that she resigned without notice in circumstances where she was entitled to do so after constructive dismissal. The respondent's employer's contract claim for loss of profit on the proposed Turkey training course failed because the claimant had not resigned in breach of contract.

On discrimination, the tribunal found that during the 7 December 2017 meeting Mr Arend asked the claimant whether she thought he had a problem with her because of her sexual orientation, after she had said she wanted more time with her family and wife. It held that this was less favourable treatment because of sexual orientation. It also held that the constructive dismissal was itself direct sexual orientation discrimination because the question, together with the surrounding treatment, formed part of the reasons for her resignation. Remedy was not determined at this hearing because the tribunal said it did not have enough evidence or submissions to assess loss, and a further remedy hearing was to be listed.