In person For the v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal heard linked claims arising first from the claimant's probationary employment at University of Hertfordshire and, later, from enquiries made after she became a student on a UH Law School course. It held that Mrs Lucas' concerns about the claimant's performance were genuine and were based on communication, relationship-building, prioritisation and role-specific arts marketing issues. The tribunal accepted the contemporaneous emails and notes from Mrs Lucas, Ms Withers, Dr Knight and other witnesses, and preferred them to the claimant's later recollection where there was conflict.

On the race and religion claims, the tribunal found that references to the claimant's strong Brazilian accent were made because of intelligibility and the requirements of the role, not because of race or religion. It rejected the claimant's allegations that Mrs Lucas made antisemitic remarks on 26 March 2018 or 20 April 2018, and it did not accept several other alleged statements about Jewish people. It also found that many of the specific complaints in the schedule were not made out on the facts, including complaints about alleged exclusion, introductions as an officer, and alleged comments about the claimant being 'the face' for UHArts.

On harassment and victimisation, the tribunal held that the claimant had not established a number of alleged protected acts, and that several of her complaints about accent and discrimination were not sincere complaints of unlawful treatment but part of an attempt to secure confirmation in post. It found that later management steps, including probation review meetings, requests for supporting evidence, and the 2019 enquiries about her enrolment as a student, were taken for reasons connected with the probation process, the ongoing dispute and concern about campus contact, not because she had done protected acts. The tribunal also found that the claimant did not prove that any relevant conduct created a hostile environment within section 26 EqA 2010 or constituted detriment because of protected acts under section 27.

The constructive dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It concluded that the respondent's conduct was not wrongful and that the claimant's resignation on 14 January 2019 did not amount to a dismissal within section 39(7)(b) EqA 2010. No remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed.