ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 4101101/2020 Heard at Edinburgh, In Person, on 18, 19, and March 2021 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Tribunal Member Mary Watt Tribunal Member Jean Grier Ms W Aftab v Represented by:15 Miss Lisa Campbell, Solicitor, per Duncan & McConnell, Solicitors Limited HC – One Ltd — 2021

The claimant, a probationary Senior Care Assistant at Murrayfield House Care Home, brought complaints of direct discrimination and harassment under the Equality Act 2010 on the basis of race and religion or belief. The tribunal allowed an amendment at the end of the evidence to include the 4 October 2019 commode-tub incident. It framed the dispute as whether a series of workplace interactions between March and October 2019 were less favourable treatment or unwanted conduct related to race or religion, and whether any of them were time-barred.

On time limits, the tribunal held that the claimant's resignation on 29/30 October 2019 was a unilateral act and not the end of any continuing act. It treated 18 October 2019 as the last alleged discriminatory act, applied early conciliation from 11 December 2019 to 9 January 2020, and concluded that the ET1 presented on 21 February 2020 was outside the primary time limit. It extended time on a just and equitable basis only for the period up to 4 December 2019, which brought only incidents on or after 8 September 2019 within jurisdiction. The earlier headscarf and Ramadan complaints in spring 2019 were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

On the merits, the tribunal rejected the direct discrimination complaints. It held that the March grievance was resolved by transfer to another floor, that the 12 July 2019 handling complaint was assessed by a manager who had not witnessed the incident, and that the 4 October reprimand, the 9 October Eziclogs instruction, the 18 October lounge conversation, the Jordan exchange, and the decision to hold back medication administration were explained by probationary performance, resident safety, footwear policy, or inconsistent management practice rather than race or religion. It found no less favourable treatment and no evidence of a discriminatory causal connection.

For harassment, the tribunal accepted that Kay Gray's repeated questions and comments about the claimant's headscarf in April or early May 2019 and Jody Clark's persistent questioning of the Ramadan-related request in May 2019 were unwanted conduct related to religion and would have satisfied section 26, but those incidents were out of time. It dismissed the remaining harassment allegations, including the notice-board, break-room, task-list, and 360-feedback complaints, and made no award.