Case 8000550/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Dr S Singh and Mrs Z Zwanenburg Ms C Blackley v Create and Prosper Financial Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000550/2023
- Decision date
- 25 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Cowen
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr S Singh and Mrs Z Zwanenburg Ms C Blackley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Blackley was employed as a Client Services Administrator from 4 July 2022. The tribunal found that she was told at interview that progression might be possible if she passed relevant exams, but that this was not a promise of promotion. It found that the respondent paid for exam entry and materials, and that Ms Smith was not a proper comparator because she had been hired as a Graduate Paraplanner and was on a separate progression track.
On the race discrimination claim, the tribunal rejected allegations that Mr Hodgson said she had been hired to "tick a diversity box", told her to buy training materials herself, said she would not progress, or made the alleged comments at the office parties. It accepted that she was not added to an office WhatsApp group, was excluded from some meetings, and experienced supervision and training that she regarded as inadequate, but found no evidence from which race could be inferred as the reason for those differences. The direct race discrimination claim was dismissed.
On harassment, the tribunal found that the 29 August 2023 dismissal meeting involved unwanted conduct and that escorting her to her car had the effect of humiliating and intimidating her. It also accepted that the respondent monitored her LinkedIn profile after dismissal and that this amounted to unwanted conduct with that effect. However, it found no link between either course of conduct and race, so the harassment claim was dismissed.
On victimisation, the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had proved any protected act in the January/February 2023 or July 2023 review meetings. It therefore held there was no foundation for the complaint that later treatment, including the dismissal process and the 13 October 2023 reference conversation, was because of a protected act. The unpaid wages claim and the accrued holiday pay claim were both withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid wages under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for outstanding accrued holiday pay at termination was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim covering WhatsApp group access, transfer opportunity, support, exam materials, meeting invitations, holiday cover, progression comments and alleged remarks was dismissed; the tribunal found no sufficient basis to infer race was the reason for the treatment, and some allegations were not proved. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found some conduct after dismissal, including the dismissal meeting and LinkedIn viewing, was unwanted and in part had the alleged effect, but it found no link to race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found no proved protected act in the review meetings, so the victimisation claim failed; the 13 October 2023 reference conversation did not change that conclusion. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd
- Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Bracebridge Engineering Ltd v Darby
- Pemberton v Inwood
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Essex County Council v Jarrett
- Deer v Walford
- Martin v Devonshires Solicitors
- Henderson v General & Municipal Boilermakers Union
- Unite the Union v Nailard
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.