Ms. L Williams-St Louis v West Berkshire District Council — 2026

Ms Williams-St Louis worked as a Youth Turn-Around Intervention Worker in West Berkshire District Council's Youth Justice Support Team from 17 July 2023 to 21 August 2024. On 3 June 2024, she experienced racial abuse during a speakerphone conversation between service user X and another young person, Y. The tribunal found that work she had done to teach X about racism and colonialism was used to mock her through references to slavery and picking cotton. It dismissed the allegations based on X's and Y's own conduct because they were third parties for whose actions the Council was not legally liable.

Two harassment allegations succeeded over managers' responses that day. Karen Norris compared the racial abuse with comments about staff being old, fat or having a speech impediment. The tribunal found that this diminished the seriousness of the abuse and implied that the claimant should absorb it and move on. Stacey Clay focused on rebuking the claimant for referring to the young people as 'little boys', rather than addressing the racial abuse and her distress. Applying section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal found that these responses were unwanted, related to race and had the prohibited effects on the claimant's working environment. It found those effects reasonable in the circumstances.

A third harassment allegation succeeded over Clay's comment on 3 July 2024 that Dave Wraight could not understand her experiences as a 'menopausal old lady'. In context, the tribunal found that this again minimised the racial abuse by equating it with insults Clay had received. Other harassment allegations failed. Clay's later statement that she could have felt threatened reflected her reaction to the claimant standing beside her desk while agitated and saying Clay would not want to see her angry. Wraight's reference to being a 'middle class old white man' acknowledged their different experiences while seeking to reassure the claimant about his training; the tribunal found that it was not reasonable to regard this as offensive in context.

All direct race discrimination allegations were dismissed. The tribunal found no sufficient evidence of less favourable treatment because of race and accepted explanations unrelated to race for the disputed decisions. The proposed comparators had materially different circumstances: JL had raised a formal grievance about the whole team, explaining her move to another building, while Wraight was Clay's manager and had responded to a panic alarm at least once. Discouragement from reporting the abuse to police reflected the advice Wraight had received and Michele Clarke's view that the service should avoid further criminalising young people. The three incidents upheld as harassment could not also constitute detriments for direct discrimination under sections 39 and 212.

Several remaining allegations failed because the tribunal accepted the reasons given for the treatment. Wraight delayed notifying staff about X's complaints while awaiting an alleged video and arranging to inform those concerned before taking leave. He requested changes to the victim impact statement to protect the claimant from further abuse and avoid sharing language he considered unprofessional with another council. The fit-note request followed the absence policy, although the annual leave day was ultimately restored without one. The claimant continued to attend general staff meetings; she was excluded from discussions specifically about X because she had asked to stop working with him. Her final pay was eight days short because Clay ticked the wrong box on a leaving form. The tribunal accepted that this was an administrative error, corrected once raised, and dismissed the associated victimisation allegation.