Mrs Patel-Vithalani For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant, Miss M Patel, brought consolidated claims of direct race discrimination, direct sex discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal against Thames Water Utilities Ltd. She had worked in the DMC team since September 2018 and, for a period after Mr Hussain left and before Miss Puri joined, Mr Brittain was her line manager. The tribunal recorded that where evidence conflicted it preferred the evidence of Mr Brittain, Miss Puri and Mr Padley over the claimant's account.

On the discrimination claims, the tribunal found that the claimant had not proved facts from which it could infer less favourable treatment because of race or sex under s.13 Equality Act 2010. It did not accept that she had routinely been asked to do level 6 work, finding instead that she remained a level 7 analyst and that some tasks she identified, including budget preparation, did not show a lower-graded role. The tribunal accepted Mr Brittain's explanation for rejecting out-of-cycle pay rises, noted that her salary was £1,000 above the mid-point for her grade, found the initial refusal of an expense claim was an error promptly corrected, and held that the promotion interview point did not show less favourable treatment because all candidates were interviewed by Mr Brittain alone and the successful candidate, Miss Puri, shared the claimant's sex and race characteristics. It also rejected or did not uphold the allegations about rumours, annual leave and the ACCA course, noting that the course request was approved once the misunderstanding was corrected.

The constructive dismissal claim failed because the tribunal did not find a fundamental breach of contract or a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found that the grievance appointment to Mr Padley was appropriate, the investigation and appeal were proportionate, the refusal to record grievance meetings was reasonable, the length of the grievance process was not unreasonable, and the remaining complaints were not made out on the evidence. The claimant resigned on 30 December 2021 and worked her notice until 30 January 2022, but the tribunal did not find that the matters relied on caused a constructive dismissal. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.