Claimant v Secretary of State for Education

The tribunal found no evidence that any of the claimant's treatment was because of her race (black Caribbean). The claimant did not establish facts from which discrimination could be inferred, and the respondent provided credible explanations for all decisions which were accepted by the tribunal.

The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant (aged 55+) was treated less favourably than actual or hypothetical comparators aged 39-50 because of her age. Performance concerns and management actions were unrelated to her age.

The alleged conduct (questioning claimant about health via MS Teams on 11 December 2023) did not relate to race and the tribunal found no connection to the protected characteristic.

The alleged conduct (questioning claimant about health via MS Teams on 11 December 2023) did not relate to age and the tribunal found no connection to the protected characteristic.

The tribunal accepted grievances of 17 January 2024 and 22 May 2024, and the first claim as protected acts. However, the tribunal found none of the alleged detriments were because the claimant had done protected acts. Where relationships broke down, this was properly separable from the discrimination complaints raised, applying Martin v Devonshires.

The tribunal found no evidence that any treatment of the claimant was because she was a woman. The respondent provided credible explanations for all decisions which had nothing to do with sex.

The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010. While she had menopausal symptoms including brain fog and fatigue which had substantial adverse effects in May 2024, there was insufficient evidence that these would last or were likely to last 12 months.

Claim failed because claimant was not disabled. In any event, the alleged PCP (not providing detailed written agendas) was not established as a practice applying Ishola, and the claimant was not placed at substantial disadvantage as she actively participated in the meeting with union support.

The tribunal found no breach of the implied terms of trust and confidence or duty of care. The respondent acted within the bounds of the claimant's contract and probation policy in terminating probation early. Cumulative breach was not established.

The claimant received the 5 weeks' notice pay to which she was entitled under her contract. There was no breach of contract in relation to notice pay and therefore no wrongful dismissal.