Ms E Banton, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2025

The claimant was Peterborough City Council’s Director of Legal and Governance and Monitoring Officer from 14 November 2022 until her dismissal on 31 August 2023 for failure of probation. The tribunal found that her first protected act occurred on 20 October 2022, when she implicitly alleged race discrimination by Birmingham City Council during recruitment discussions with Mr Gladstone and Ms Pullen. It accepted that they understood she was complaining of race discrimination, but it rejected the claimant’s case that her later treatment at Peterborough was part of a pre-existing plan to remove her.

Most of the claimant’s complaints about early meetings and later management decisions were dismissed. The tribunal found that Mr Gladstone and Ms Pullen were welcoming on 14 November 2022 and did not pressure her to sign the Birmingham settlement agreement. It rejected the claims based on the “bring your dog to work day” comment, the alleged “lynched” remark, the suggestion of Mark Greenburgh as a coach, the “diversity is why you are here” comment, the DLUHC meeting, the probation review process, the commercial entities work, the election arrangements, and the later grievance, suspension and council decisions. On the evidence, the tribunal found that Mr Gladstone and other decision-makers had genuinely held concerns about the claimant’s performance, leadership and judgement, and that many of her perceptions arose from misinterpretation or later re-framing of events.

The tribunal upheld two complaints of harassment related to race. First, in February 2023, Mr Gladstone asked the claimant and Adsuwa Omoregie whether they were friends; although he did not intend offence, the tribunal held that the question could reasonably be understood as implying that two black women must know each other. Second, on 11 April 2023 Ms Booth sent a photograph of a black samba performer to the CLT WhatsApp group and wrote that the Brazilian samba was “a bit racy”; the tribunal held that, in context, the image related to race and reasonably created a degrading environment for the claimant. Those were the only complaints that succeeded.

The tribunal rejected the victimisation case. It found that the claimant later made protected acts in March, April, May, June and August 2023, including raising discrimination concerns with Ms Pullen and submitting an ET claim and grievance, but it held that Mr Gladstone, Ms Pullen, Ms Booth and the Independent Panel were not materially influenced by those protected acts when they extended probation, decided that she had failed probation, suspended her, or took the matter through the Independent Panel and full Council. It also held that the Panel and full Council gave the matter anxious consideration and were not rubber-stamping Mr Gladstone’s recommendation.

No remedy was determined in this judgment. The tribunal stated that the case would be listed for a remedy hearing separately, so no monetary award was recorded here. The judgment also held that the Model Disciplinary Procedure was not contractually applicable to the claimant’s role, and that any procedural unfairness did not, on its own, establish discrimination or victimisation.