Claimant v London Borough of Sutton

The tribunal found none of the alleged incidents occurred as claimed, or if they did occur, they had no link to the claimant's race (Black African Arab). The claimant was not treated less favourably than the comparator Adela Lamarche or a hypothetical comparator. The tribunal found the claimant had misconceived the situation at work and the respondents' witnesses were credible and professional throughout.

The tribunal found the claimant was not permitted to retain her Health Visitor Team Leader role because it required clinical work that could not be done fully remotely, and she was working from home due to her back condition. This was not because she was disabled - anyone working fully from home would have been treated the same. Ms Giles did not insist the claimant attend the office every day as alleged.

The tribunal accepted that depriving the claimant of the opportunity to work as a Health Visitor Team Leader was unfavourable treatment arising from her disability (need to work from home). However, this was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of ensuring sufficient clinical cover and proper supervision and management of the team. There were no lesser measures that would have achieved those aims.

The tribunal found that the alleged PCPs either did not exist or were not applied to the claimant. There was no PCP requiring the claimant to attend the office every day. The claimant was provided with a second screen when she requested one. The practice of requiring 10 MASHs per day was not applied to her - she was only asked to complete one.

The tribunal found none of the allegations, either individually or cumulatively, amounted to harassment. The alleged incidents either did not happen or had nothing to do with race. The tribunal found the claimant had misunderstood the situation and her case was totally misconceived.

The tribunal accepted that raising a grievance on 7 March 2022 was a protected act. However, when Ms Giles contacted the claimant on 19 April 2022, she did not have any information about the grievance and could not have known the claimant had done a protected act. Ms Giles contacted the claimant because she needed to oversee the claimant's work in Ms Crate's absence, not because of the protected act.