Ms L Waller v Swann Engineering Group Limited — 2025

The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Programme Co-ordinator from 11 April 2022 until 22 August 2024, reporting to Andrew Gregory. On 5 July 2024 she complained to HR about comments she said Mr Gregory had made suggesting her difficulties concentrating were due to the menopause. The Tribunal found that, shortly after Mr Gregory learned of this complaint, he initiated a Performance Improvement Process and decided to move the Claimant to an office in another building, neither of which was justified by her recent performance or supported by a cogent rationale. The Claimant resigned on 22 July 2024, giving one month's notice, and her employment ended on 22 August 2024.

The Tribunal held that the constructive unfair dismissal complaint under s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded and succeeded. It also held that the victimisation complaints under s.27 Equality Act 2010 partially succeeded: the imposition of the PIP, the move to the factory office, and the constructive dismissal were detriments materially influenced by the Claimant's protected act. The remaining victimisation allegations, and the harassment complaints brought under s.26 Equality Act 2010, were dismissed; the Tribunal found that the detail in the Teams message of 5 July 2024 was not sufficient to amount to a grievance and rejected the contention that there had been a failure to deal with that grievance.

The Tribunal reached its conclusions without needing to rely on the statutory burden of proof, but indicated that had it done so it would have found that the Claimant proved facts from which an inference of victimisation could be drawn and that the Respondent had not discharged the burden of disproving victimisation. A Remedy Hearing was listed for early 2026 to determine the remedy for the successful complaints.