Case 4100548/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Member K Culloch Tribunal Member A Shanahan Mrs Li R R MacLeod v Represented by: Mr M Ross, Solicitor Stirling Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 4100548/2024
- Decision date
- 14 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
- Venue
- Dundee
- Panel members
- K Culloch, A Shanahan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member K Culloch Tribunal Member A Shanahan Mrs Li R R MacLeod
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Li Rong Rong MacLeod brought a direct discrimination claim under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 relying on race and belief. The tribunal accepted that the claimant’s non-appointment to the two posts she relied on amounted to less favourable treatment and that her belief was a protected belief, but the case turned on causation: whether race or belief was any effective reason for the treatment.
For the first role at Bluebell House, the claimant was initially booked for an SLA post on 30 August 2023, but on 31 August and 1 September 2023 she was told that additional support from the respondent’s ASN Outreach team meant the school no longer required SLA support. The tribunal found that this change in circumstances was the sole reason the booking was withdrawn, that the post ceased to be a vacancy, and that race or belief played no part in the decision.
For the second role at Stirling High School, Ms Fiona McGonigle sifted fourteen applications and selected four candidates for interview because they met the essential criteria, including experience dealing with pupils exhibiting challenging behaviour. The claimant was not interviewed because her application did not sufficiently meet those criteria, and nine other applicants were also not interviewed. The tribunal found that Ms McGonigle did not know of the claimant’s belief, that race did not influence the sift, and that the claimant’s reliance on earlier, unrelated matters did not establish a prima facie case and was in any event outside the pleaded case and out of time.
Applying the burden of proof authorities it cited, including Igen v Wong, Madarassy, Shamoon and related cases, the tribunal held that the claimant had not shown facts from which discrimination could be inferred. It concluded that an hypothetical comparator in materially the same circumstances would have been treated the same way, and therefore dismissed the claim in full. No remedy arose.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal accepted that the claimant is Chinese, but found race played no part in either the withdrawal of the Bluebell House booking or the decision not to interview her for the Stirling High School SLA role. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal accepted that the claimant held the belief of public opposition to the Chinese Communist Party and Government, but found the relevant decision-makers were unaware of that belief and that it played no part in either decision. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010 direct discrimination
- section 136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Igen v Wong / Madarassy burden-shifting
- Shamoon comparator approach
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.