Ms S Aly, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2021

Ms K Cooper was employed as Channel Director from 4 July 2016 on a £150,000 salary plus SIP. The tribunal found that Mr Cooper was a disabled person and that the respondents knew this by March 2019, but it rejected most of the claimant’s historical allegations of race, sex and disability-related mistreatment. It found that many of the alleged comments and incidents relied on in the further particulars were not proved.

On the Equality Act claims, the tribunal found that the 8 May 2019 car conversation was unwanted and could be upsetting because it was a sudden warning of possible redundancy, but it was not related to sex, race or Mr Cooper’s disability and was not a dismissal. The claimant’s 9 May 2019 email was not a protected act. Her solicitor’s 24 May 2019 letter was a protected act and was not made in bad faith, but the tribunal found no victimisation because the later steps in the appeal and grievance process were not taken because of that letter.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted the respondents’ redundancy case under the redundancy definition in s.139 ERA 1996. It found that the Channel Director role was removed as part of a restructure, that consultation took place on 13 and 16 May 2019, and that the appeal was heard on 19 June 2019 and rejected by letter dated 15 July 2019. Although the process was quick and there were some imperfections, the tribunal held that the dismissal was fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996; if it had been unfair, the tribunal said Polkey would have meant dismissal shortly afterwards in any event. The remedy hearing listed for July 2021 was vacated because all claims were dismissed.