In person For the v Respondent — 2018

The claimant, a black woman, worked as a Careers Guidance Adviser on the respondent's Young Careers contract from September 2018 until March 2019. She brought claims including automatic unfair dismissal/public interest disclosure dismissal, public interest disclosure detriments, direct race and sex discrimination, harassment related to race and sex, and victimisation. Her late application to reinstate or add an indirect sex discrimination claim was refused because it was made after evidence and submissions and would have been prejudicial to the respondent.

On public interest disclosure, the tribunal found that some matters relied on were not qualifying disclosures, including earlier concerns about travel distances, placement matching, 5e's approach to placements, and insurance or company status issues. It accepted that the grievance of 31 January 2019, the email to Mr Millar on 24 January 2019 about a student's sexual assault, and part of the grievance appeal concerning a previous placement involving hazardous chemicals were capable of being protected disclosures. The tribunal found the dismissal was because of redundancy and length of service, not because of protected disclosures; redundancy planning began before the accepted protected disclosures and affected twelve employees with under two years' service.

The tribunal dismissed the whistleblowing detriment allegations, finding that the alleged treatment was either before the accepted protected disclosures or not materially influenced by them. It found, among other things, that the claimant was not ostracised or treated as a troublemaker, was not discouraged from applying for promotion because of protected disclosures, was not excluded from the safeguarding investigation for that reason, and that the grievance and appeal were investigated and rejected for reasons unrelated to the disclosures.

The race and sex discrimination claims were dismissed. The tribunal found the respondent had business reasons for initially requiring the claimant to work 40 hours, later supported her reduced-hours request, and allocated additional schools without increasing her contractual hours. It found that the claimant's comparators for LEAN contract roles were not in materially similar circumstances, that the redundancy process affected a racially diverse group and both sexes, and that the challenged acts were unrelated to race or sex.

The harassment and victimisation claims were also dismissed. The tribunal found that the matters relied on for harassment, including enquiries about the claimant's whereabouts, the probation review wording about professionalism, and the PAR score, were not unwanted conduct related to race or sex with the required purpose or effect. The victimisation claim was described as misconceived because a flexible working request is not a protected act under section 27 Equality Act 2010, and in any event the alleged detriments were not caused by the request.