In person For the v Respondent — 2025

The tribunal refused the claimant's strike out application against the respondent's response under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. It accepted that the bundle and witness statement exchange had been late and that this had caused difficulty for a litigant in person, but found the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable and was not the sole cause of the preparation difficulties.

On the constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the claimant's workload was not excessive compared with colleagues and that she had not been allocated more complex cases than others. It accepted that she had a reduced caseload for a period after sick leave and that the respondent was trying to give her space to improve one area of her work, namely SMART family plans. It also found no breach in requiring her to attend the hospital visit on 12 April 2023, given her role, the child's situation, and the fact that unsocial hours were part of the job. The allegation that the respondent ignored her emails and calls was not made out, and the criticism of her family support plans in September 2022 and the April 2023 performance improvement plan were found to be justified responses to an ongoing performance issue rather than repudiatory conduct.

On the race discrimination claim, the tribunal applied section 13 and section 136 Equality Act 2010 and the approach in Igen v Wong. It found no facts from which it could infer that the claimant was treated less favourably because of race. The evening hospital visit was assigned because it was her case and she had met the child before, and the criticism of her plans and the performance improvement plan were supported by non-discriminatory reasons. In relation to the school meeting in March 2023, the tribunal found the respondent's handling was careless and could have been more sensitive, but it did not find that the school's criticisms were simply accepted without comment or that the claimant was denied an opportunity to respond. The claimant's claims of constructive unfair dismissal and race discrimination were therefore dismissed and no monetary award was made.