Case 8000066/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Member Mr R McPherson Tribunal Member Dr S Singh Ms R Bullen v Represented by: Mr M McCafferty, Colleague Department for Work & Pensions — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000066/2023
- Decision date
- 13 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Mackay Tribunal
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Mr R McPherson, Dr S Singh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member Mr R McPherson Tribunal Member Dr S Singh Ms R Bullen
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claim was presented out of time, but extended time on a just and equitable basis because an in-time ET1 had been rejected for a technical error and was promptly re-presented. It also treated the 28 June 2022 carer-marker issue as a discrete act rather than part of a continuing act, but again extended time for that allegation.
On the merits, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was associated with her disabled grandmother through caring responsibilities, but rejected the direct disability discrimination claim. It found that the removal of the carer marker on 28 June 2022 was a temporary update reflecting an understood pause in caring while the grandmother was in hospital, that the 8 September 2022 Ukraine-taskforce discussion was voluntary and aimed at helping the claimant decide whether participation was viable, and that the later removal of the claimant's bag was done because of a workplace policy on unattended personal items rather than because of the grandmother's disability.
The harassment claim also failed. The tribunal found that the first two acts were not unwanted in the relevant sense, and that none of the three acts was related to the protected characteristic. It accepted that the bag removal caused some upset and that the matter could have been handled in a more professional way, but that did not make it harassment under the Equality Act.
The victimisation claim failed as well. The claimant's decision not to commit to the Ukraine taskforce was not a protected act. Although the tribunal accepted that the 12 September 2022 grievance was a protected act, it found that the move to Saltcoats, the reallocation of caseload, the removal from Kilbirnie communications groups, and the travel-expense issue were not detriments caused by that grievance. The claimant was reimbursed for increased travel costs. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Associative disability discrimination based on the claimant's caring responsibilities for her disabled grandmother. The pleaded acts were the removal of the carer marker on 28 June 2022, the discussion about the Ukraine taskforce on 8 September 2022, and the removal of the claimant's bag later that day. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability on the same three pleaded acts. The tribunal accepted the bag removal caused upset, but found no link to the grandmother's disability and no harassment in the first two acts. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal accepted the 12 September 2022 grievance as a protected act, but rejected the claimant's decision not to commit to the Ukraine taskforce as a protected act. It found the alleged detriments were not caused by the grievance and that travel expenses were reimbursed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.123 EqA 2010 just and equitable extension
- continuing act under s.123(3) EqA 2010
- Coleman v Attridge Law
- Shamoon v The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- s.136 EqA 2010 burden of proof
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Laing v Manchester City Council
- Barton v Investec
- Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Griffiths Henry
- Reed & Another v Stedman
- Warburton v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police
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.