J Anderson and J Burnett Ms R Montgomery v Grace Communion International — 2024

The tribunal found that the claimant's work as Communications Co-ordinator was affected by a mismatch between the written job description, what Gavin Henderson expected, and what the claimant understood the role to be. It accepted that the claimant had dyslexia, that there were church and volunteer roles running alongside her employment, and that many of the practical difficulties arose from unclear expectations, an emergency sabbatical by Gavin Henderson, and a lack of handover rather than from unlawful treatment. It also held that the sex discrimination allegations were not time-barred because, on the facts, they formed a continuing course of conduct through the grievance and appeal process until the appeal outcome was communicated on 14 June 2022.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal found that the attachment sent on 23 December 2021 and again on 30 December 2021 headed 'Whistleblowing Complaint by Rachel Montgomery' was a qualifying disclosure, but it did not accept that the earlier alleged oral disclosures were proved. Even so, it dismissed both the s.47B ERA detriment claim and the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA. The tribunal found that the decision not to renew the fixed-term contract had already been made before the protected acts and that the reason for ending employment was the expiry of the extended fixed term and the absence of another suitable role, not the protected disclosure.

The direct sex discrimination claim, the direct disability discrimination claim, the s.15 claim and the reasonable adjustments claim all failed. The tribunal did not find a prima facie case that the claimant was treated less favourably because of sex or disability. It held that the role problems were caused by unclear communication and management issues, not by the claimant being female or by her dyslexia, and it did not accept that the claimant had proved a disability-related adverse treatment or a substantial disadvantage requiring reasonable adjustments.

The harassment claim under s.26 EqA 2010 succeeded only in relation to the external HR consultant meeting on 6 April 2022, where the claimant's need to slow down because of dyslexia was not properly taken into account. The victimisation claim under s.27 EqA 2010 succeeded only in part: the tribunal found that the claimant's protected acts were the 8 December 2021 email and the 2 January 2022 grievance, and that the early termination on 10 March 2022 and the 24 June 2022 announcement/read-out were detriments caused by those acts. The GiANT expense claim under s.13 ERA 1996 was dismissed because reimbursement had not been pursued or agreed during employment. The final award was £13,423.38, made up of £643.38 financial loss, £9,900 injury to feelings and £2,880 interest at 8%.