Case 4103693/2022 · Employment Tribunal
: A Shanahan C Rochford Dr L Munjoma v The Scottish Ministers — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103693/2022
- Decision date
- 23 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Sorrell
- Venue
- Dundee
- Panel members
- A Shanahan, C Rochford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
: A Shanahan C Rochford Dr L Munjoma
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a contract worker assigned by Pertemps to Social Security Scotland as a Learning Facilitator, brought complaints of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race. The tribunal found that she described herself as a person of colour and of Zimbabwean origin, and considered alleged treatment including delays in equipment and access, a reduced training route-way, meetings about readiness and capability, monitoring of training sessions, intervention during a training session, termination of the assignment, lack of formal assessment, and handling of her complaint.
The tribunal accepted that there were concerns about the claimant's familiarity with MS Teams, retention of digital information, preparation for training delivery, and an incident in which sensitive information about a learner was inadvertently shared with the class. It found the respondent's reasons for the treatment were connected with equipment shortages, service desk delays, the respondent's training arrangements for Pertemps staff, capability concerns, support needs, and the training incident, rather than race, colour or national origin.
For the harassment complaint, the tribunal accepted that aspects of the 25 April 2022 meeting and Mr Smith's intervention on 4 May 2022 amounted to unwanted conduct for the claimant, and accepted in relation to the latter that it was reasonable for the conduct to have created a humiliating environment. However, it found that the unwanted conduct was not related to race. Both complaints were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Complaint of direct discrimination because of race, colour and/or national origin was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment related to race, colour and/or national origin was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
18 references- s.41 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.9 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Igen v Wong
- Laing v Manchester City Council
- Martin v Devonshires Solicitors
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd
- s.124 Equality Act 2010
- s.119 Equality Act 2010
- Komeng v Creative Support Ltd
- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No.2)
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.