Mr M Curtis, of counsel For the v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 from at least the summer of 2016, with anxiety and depression. It found, however, that all Equality Act claims failed. The tribunal held that the management actions surrounding the February 2017 event, the event report, the working-hours discussions, the PDR process, the security review over recordings, and the grievance process were not motivated by sex or disability, and that the claimant resigned on 19 April 2018 rather than being dismissed.

On disputed facts, the tribunal rejected the claimant's evidence that Mr Haslam stroked her hand, and it also rejected allegations that he used phrases such as "keep your hair on", "Oooo is it that girl time, put your handbag away", or "nobody said the project would keep you on". It similarly rejected the allegation that Mr Archibald said she should be cleaning up after delegates, that he said she was "not a proper engineer", that he "shushed" her in a discriminatory way, and that he said people with mental health issues should be "lined up and shot". It found that the criticisms of the claimant's work on the February 2017 event report and the later performance-management steps were objectively justified and unrelated to sex or disability.

The tribunal found that Dr Banks's 4 March 2016 email replying to "Maybe she's got a bun in the oven?..." amounted to harassment, but it held that the claim was out of time and refused to extend time because the claimant knew or should have known about the email by 8 February 2018 and did not present that part of the claim until 18 July 2018. It also found that the investigation into the claimant's covert recordings was a legitimate response to security and export-control concerns, and that by 27 July 2017 the claimant knew the matter would be closed once she provided a short written statement.

The grievance of 9 January 2018 was investigated by Mr Pegg and appealed to Mr Markham, but the tribunal found that the complaints said to amount to victimisation were not protected acts, or were not shown to have caused the later treatment complained of. On constructive dismissal, the tribunal held that the claimant resigned because she was dissatisfied with the PDR wording and related matters, but those matters did not amount individually or cumulatively to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.