In person For the first v Respondent — 2021

The claimant, a Student Services Manager and Designated Safeguarding Lead, said that a grievance she made on 10 July 2018 about alleged discrimination during pregnancy was a protected act and that later treatment by the first respondent was victimisation. The tribunal accepted that the grievance was a protected act, but it approached each of the 15 alleged detriments by asking whether the claimant had shown facts from which victimisation could be inferred under section 136(2) EqA 2010, and whether the respondent had rebutted any such inference. It also referred to the Shamoon approach when deciding the reason for the treatment complained of.

The tribunal dismissed the complaints about the grievance policy, workload, the 4 March 2019 meeting, training, and the alleged failure to act on a remark by David Oughton. It found that the failure to implement the grievance-policy amendment was explained by administrative disruption and later by the claimant and Ms Leyshon-Wilson focusing on the occupational health referral, and in any event was not detrimental treatment. It found no evidential basis for the workload allegations or the claimed denial of NPQSL training; the claimant's own evidence showed team working tensions, and the tribunal found that the training budget was spent and no inference of retaliation could be drawn. It also found that the 4 March 2019 meeting was not conducted as the claimant alleged, and that Ms Dash's response to the Oughton incident reflected a misunderstanding of possible harassment rather than victimisation.

The tribunal upheld the respondent's explanation for the suspension on 26 June 2019 and the later safeguarding-related steps. It held that the suspension was fully warranted on the material before Mr Wiltshire, that the allegation about incomplete safeguarding forms was supported by the papers and by the LADO's response, and that the OH referral was made without informing the claimant because Mr Wiltshire wanted to avoid a confrontation rather than because of the 2018 grievance. It also rejected the complaints about the call to Ms Jackie Nicholls, the removal of the claimant's name from timetables and DSL posters, and the deactivation of The Key subscription, finding that these steps were taken for reasons unrelated to the protected act. Overall, the tribunal found no conduct extending over a period that amounted to victimisation and dismissed the claim in full.