Ms S Lyfar v Clarion Housing Group Ltd — 2019

The tribunal held that the claims were brought in time as part of a continuing act connected with the respondent being contacted about allegations concerning resident F, the claimant's suspension, investigation, disciplinary process, dismissal, appeal, and safeguarding-related communications. It also stated that, if necessary, it would have extended time on a just and equitable basis. The tribunal dismissed complaints about the suspension reasons, the length of suspension, updates during suspension, the safeguarding referral, the charity money investigation, the grievance and grievance appeal outcomes, the failure to provide the full Janet Quirke statement before the disciplinary hearing, the adequacy of the investigation, reinstatement, the final written warning, and communications with Hertfordshire County Council, finding that those matters were not proved to be race discrimination, harassment related to race, or victimisation.

The successful claim concerned the dismissal decision on 17 January 2019. The tribunal found the dismissal reasons given by Ms Lawson to be unsupported by evidence held by the respondent and described the decision to dismiss for the stated reasons as extraordinary. It took into account the non-provision of the full Quirke statement, failures in the disciplinary pack and hearing process, and comparator evidence about white employees who had received final written warnings for different misconduct. Applying the burden of proof under section 136 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal concluded that the burden shifted and that the respondent had not proved that the claimant would have been treated the same if her race had been different. The dismissal was therefore upheld as direct race discrimination.

The tribunal dismissed the harassment and victimisation allegations. It found that the dismissal was not because of a protected act, and that Ms Lawson was not aware of the July 2018 grievance or the tribunal claim when making the dismissal decision. Although the tribunal accepted that race discrimination allegations were made during the disciplinary hearing, those were not pleaded as protected acts. It also found that the dismissal was discrimination but not harassment, and that the other alleged acts were not shown to be related to race or caused by protected acts.

On remedy, the tribunal recorded that there were no financial losses and awarded compensation only for injury to feelings and interest. It applied the Vento guidance and found that the dismissal was a one-off act of discrimination whose effects were significant but not long-lasting, including a period when the claimant was signed off with anxiety. The tribunal awarded £7,000 for injury to feelings, within the lower Vento band, plus £1,236.60 interest, producing a total award of £8,236.60.