Case 3312077/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Haroon v The Governing Body of Manorcroft Primary School and 3 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312077/2020
- Decision date
- 19 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms J Cameron, Mr A Morgan
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Ms J Haroon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, an Asian Pakistani Muslim woman who wore a hijab, was employed as a learning support assistant on a temporary maternity-cover contract from 9 March 2020. After the school closed because of covid-19, she did not return when the school reopened its emergency provision and instead told Mrs Bell on 1 June 2020 that she would not be coming in because of her husband’s vulnerability and her concern about passing coronavirus to him. The tribunal accepted that she brought circumstances she reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety to her employer’s attention by reasonable means.
On the race and religion/belief discrimination claims, the tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that she was treated less favourably because of those characteristics. It accepted Mrs Bell’s evidence that the phrase 'guinea pig' was used only because the claimant was the first person to go through a new induction checklist, and not in any offensive sense. The tribunal also found that the reopening-plan, rota, PARAGO access, unpaid leave, and risk-assessment issues were explained by the claimant’s attendance position, the interrupted induction process, and the school’s covid planning, not by race or religion/belief. It found no valid less-favourable-treatment comparison and dismissed both discrimination claims.
On the health and safety dismissal and detriment claims, the tribunal found that the school later decided to end the claimant’s temporary post for financial reasons and to make savings, and that the dismissal was not because she had raised health and safety concerns. It accepted that most of the alleged detriments either did not occur as alleged or were not shown to be detriments, although it treated the 21 July 2020 appeal outcome as a detriment in itself. Even so, it found no causal link between that detriment and the protected disclosure. The unlawful deduction from wages claim failed because the claimant produced no evidence in support of it.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal accepted the 'guinea pig' remark referred to the first use of a new induction checklist and found no less favourable treatment because of race in the reopening, unpaid leave, risk-assessment or grievance events. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The claimant said the 'pig' element of 'guinea pig' was religiously offensive, but the tribunal found the phrase was not used in an offensive sense and identified no treatment because of religion or belief. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Other | Health and safety detriment under s.44 ERA 1996. The tribunal accepted the claimant raised covid-related health and safety concerns on 1 June 2020, but found the alleged detriments were either not proved or not shown to be because of that disclosure; it treated the appeal outcome as a detriment in itself but not a causal one. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Health and safety dismissal under s.100 ERA 1996. The tribunal found the school terminated the temporary maternity-cover post for financial reasons and to make savings, not because the claimant had raised health and safety concerns. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant did not present evidence to support the wages claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- two-stage direct discrimination burden of proof
- s.44 ERA 1996
- s.100 ERA 1996
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.