Ms E Johnson v Bath Spa University Ltd — 2024

Ms E Johnson brought a victimisation claim under s.27 Equality Act 2010 after making race-discrimination allegations in a return-to-work meeting on or around 31 October 2021 and in a grievance on 4 January 2022. She had started as a Lecturer in Modern Languages on 1 September 2021 on a fixed-term contract with a six-month probationary period. The respondent investigated the complaint, concluded there was no evidence of race bias but there may have been unconscious bias linked to capability, and continued the probation process while the grievance was dealt with separately.

The tribunal found some of the pleaded matters were detriments in fact, including the failure to consider and grant an extension of probation, the refusal to pause the probation and dismissal process, the failure to change the claimant's line manager, the refusal to grant an extension to mark 16 assignments, and the dismissal itself. It rejected other pleaded allegations, including the complaint about subject-specific marking criteria, the allegation that Wendy Hanrahan failed to take account of hindrance by Teach First, and the allegation that no sponsor was provided, finding that a sponsor had been offered through Ms Bambo Soyinka. One pleaded issue, 1.3.5, was withdrawn.

Applying s.136 Equality Act 2010 and the authorities cited, including Igen, Hewage, Ayodele, Madarassy, Shamoon and Khan, the tribunal held that the respondent had proved the real reason for the detriments was the claimant's performance and capability, non-engagement with the probation process, and external contractual and service-delivery requirements, rather than the protected acts. The victimisation claim was therefore dismissed and no monetary award was made.