Members Ms D McDougall & Mr D Frew Ms E Okwuwe v Represented by: Mr R Clarke - Solicitor Greater Glasgow Health Board — 2025

The claimant, who the tribunal found was of Black African race, brought claims of direct race discrimination, race-related harassment, victimisation and unfair constructive dismissal arising out of events from April 2023 to July 2024. The tribunal found that after the claimant told AH that she had been cautioned and charged in relation to an alleged assault on her child, she was placed on special leave, removed from bank duties and later offered non-patient-facing work in the laundry while the respondent tried to identify other roles. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that these steps were taken because of the charge and the claimant's childcare constraints, not because of race.

The tribunal did not accept the claimant's evidence as credible or reliable and preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses. It found that the claimant was supported through her special leave, phased return and later transfer discussions, and that the respondent's responses to the toilet incident, the later child-protection concern and the reference for the claimant's job application were objective and professional. In particular, the tribunal found that the toilet enquiry was reasonable in the low secure setting, that the report to police and the public protection process on 27 May 2024 was justified on child-protection grounds, and that the reference on 27 June 2024 was honestly and genuinely given even though it was detrimental to the claimant's application.

The race discrimination and harassment claims failed because the tribunal found no less favourable treatment and no conduct related to race. On the tribunal's findings, a comparator in similar circumstances would have been treated in the same way, and there was no credible evidence that race played any part in the respondent's decisions. The harassment claim also failed for the same reason, with the tribunal finding that the conduct complained of was not race-related.

The victimisation claim failed because the tribunal held that the emails and meeting relied on by the claimant were not protected acts within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010: they were either vague and generalised complaints or did not assert facts capable in law of amounting to discrimination. The tribunal also found no causal link between any protected act and the later transfer to Rowanbank or the reference. The constructive dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found no repudiatory breach of contract, no destruction or serious damage to mutual trust and confidence, and therefore no constructive dismissal under the ERA 1996. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.