Amy Reeves v Kier Ltd Heard: in Sheffield on 13, 14, 15, 18 and 19 May 2026 — 2026

The claimant, Amy Reeves, was employed by Kier Ltd as a Commercial Administrator from 18 November 2024 until she resigned with immediate effect on 3 July 2025. She described her race as mixed race, English and Jamaican. The tribunal identified complaints of harassment related to race, victimisation and direct race discrimination. It also addressed the claimant's assertion that the respondent's treatment amounted to a fundamental breach of contract and that she had been constructively dismissed.

The harassment claim was dismissed. The tribunal found that Laura Edgar had described a tenant as a "little old black lady" and that Wayne Pashley had referred to "two coloured ladies outside", but concluded that the first comment was descriptive and did not have the proscribed purpose or effect, and that although the second comment was related to race and upset the claimant, it was not reasonable in all the circumstances for it to have the proscribed effect. The tribunal found that alleged comments by Kieran Pell and Wayne Pashley mocking non-English names were not made. It also found that Chloe Saunders' deletion of OneNote tasks and changed tone were not related to race and had non-discriminatory explanations.

The victimisation claim was dismissed. The tribunal found that the claimant's 4 March 2025 message to Wayne Bramley was a protected act, and the respondent admitted that her 1 May 2025 grievance was a protected act. However, it found that those involved in the first four alleged detriments did not know about the 4 March protected act, and that Ms Saunders did not know about either protected act at the relevant time. The tribunal found that HR had communicated with the claimant, tried to progress the grievance, offered welfare contact, alternative working arrangements, a changed grievance hearer and written questions, and that the Oracle assignment end date shown as 30 June 2025 reflected a business-wide HR code change rather than a change to the claimant's contract end date.

The direct race discrimination claim was dismissed. The tribunal found that a hypothetical white British comparator would have been treated the same. It accepted that comments during the 6 March 2025 Teams meeting arose because the claimant had contacted the client and changed the Eid event date without informing others responsible for the event. It found there was no evidence that alleged whispering was about the claimant, that the absence of the claimant's photograph from the fridge was because she had not attended the event and Ms Saunders did not subsequently take a photograph, and that Mr Pell's response to the claimant's garden working-from-home photograph was unrelated to race.

No remedy was awarded because all substantive claims failed. The tribunal stated that it was not necessary to consider remedy or time limits. It found that the respondent's treatment did not amount to a breach of contract, that the respondent had acted reasonably in its interactions with the claimant, and that the claimant was not constructively dismissed.