Claimant v Harris Federation
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal denied the respondent's strike-out application. There were unresolved factual disputes as to whether a protected disclosure was made, whether the claimant's beliefs were reasonable, and whether there was a causal link between the disclosure and the alleged detriment. The tribunal found it was not obvious that informing the respondent about a misleading reference did not amount to a protected disclosure. These matters required determination at a full merits hearing.
The tribunal denied the strike-out application but found the claim had little reasonable prospect of success. The claimant identified two named comparators of a different race who received longer contracts. While there was a possibility the claimant could discharge the initial burden of proof under Igen v Wong, the tribunal considered there was little reasonable prospect of showing race was a material factor, as the claim narrative focused almost exclusively on the negative reference rather than race. A deposit order of £100 was made.
Facts
The claimant worked part-time for the respondent school under a contract due to expire in September 2024. In July 2024, she challenged the accuracy of a reference the respondent had provided about her. The respondent subsequently informed her that her part-time contract would not be renewed and invited her to apply for a full-time role instead. The claimant alleged that the non-renewal was because of her complaint about the reference (whistleblowing) and/or because of her race, pointing to two named comparators of different races who received longer contracts.
Decision
The tribunal denied the respondent's application to strike out both the whistleblowing and race discrimination claims. Material factual disputes existed about whether a protected disclosure was made and whether there was a causal link to the detriment. However, the tribunal found the race discrimination claim had little reasonable prospect of success because the claimant's narrative focused on the reference issue rather than race, and made a deposit order of £100.
Practical note
Tribunals will be slow to strike out discrimination and whistleblowing claims where material factual disputes remain, even where the claim narrative does not emphasise the protected characteristic, but may still make deposit orders where prospects appear weak.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 6005727/2024
- Decision date
- 13 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No