Case 4100048/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Member S Singh Tribunal Member P O’Hagan Mrs L Gibb v Represented by: Mr R Eadie - Solicitor Dumfries and Galloway Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 4100048/2022
- Decision date
- 9 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison Tribunal
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- S Singh, P O'Hagan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member S Singh Tribunal Member P O’Hagan Mrs L Gibb
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a teacher at Stranraer Academy, alleged direct discrimination and harassment by the headteacher, Alicia Reid, because of her asserted belief that Scotland can only ensure social justice by remaining part of the UK. The tribunal applied the Grainger test and held that the asserted belief was not a protected philosophical belief. It found that the evidence showed a viewpoint about the best means of securing social justice, rather than a belief with sufficient cogency, seriousness and cohesion to qualify under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal also found that Ms Reid did not know the claimant held the articulated belief, or how she had voted in the independence referendum. It rejected the suggestion that the matters relied on by the claimant were driven by her belief, including the 6 January 2020 staff day, parent council meetings, the behaviour-policy meetings, and the ASL teaching allocation. The tribunal accepted that the staffing and contract decisions had explanations based on school needs, the claimant's existing ASL contract, and the desire to avoid making another teacher surplus, and it noted that the disciplinary process arose from the parent council complaint and was handled by education directorate staff, not Ms Reid.
On direct discrimination, the tribunal applied Shamoon v RUC and focused on the 'reason why' question. It held that the claimant was not treated less favourably because of her belief. On harassment, it held there was no unwanted conduct related to a protected belief and no basis to find that Ms Reid intended, or that it would be reasonable to conclude, that the conduct violated dignity or created a hostile or offensive environment. The respondent's time-limit objection was rejected on the basis that the alleged conduct was capable of being viewed as a continuing act and the claim, after ACAS conciliation, was not time-barred. The claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal held that the asserted belief that Scotland can only ensure social justice by remaining part of the UK was not a protected philosophical belief under Grainger. It also found that, even if protected, Ms Reid did not know of that articulated belief and the treatment complained of had non-discriminatory explanations. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal held there was no unwanted conduct related to the claimant's belief that could be said to have violated dignity or created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. It rejected the time-bar argument, but the claim still failed on the merits. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Grainger plc and others v Nicholson
- Shamoon v RUC
- s.10(2) Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Keeble factors
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.