Claimant v St John Ambulance
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant did not discharge her burden to show that alleged conduct was related to her race. The question 'where are you from' was asked once on 13 September 2022 in a well-meaning, multicultural office context and was not repeated. Many factual allegations were found not to have occurred as alleged. Where conduct did occur (e.g. exclusion from introductions), the tribunal found no evidential link to the claimant's race – it was motivated by poor line management and external frustrations, not discriminatory animus.
While some conduct was found to be unwanted (e.g. excluding claimant from being introduced to second respondent's family, starting team day early), the tribunal concluded this conduct was not related to the claimant's race or religion. The claimant relied on a single question about her origin asked on day one, but the tribunal found this was a genuine, well-meaning enquiry in a multicultural office that celebrated all religions and festivals. The tribunal found no evidential connection between this question and later conduct, which was instead motivated by poor management and situational frustrations.
The tribunal applied the same analysis as for race discrimination. The claimant identified as Indian Hindu, but failed to show that any unwanted conduct was related to her religion. The initial question about her background was found to be part of understanding colleagues' cultures to celebrate religious festivals, not discriminatory. Later conduct was not linked to religion.
Same reasoning as harassment related to race. The tribunal found no evidential basis to conclude that unwanted conduct (where it occurred) was related to the claimant's Hindu religion.
Withdrawn by claimant at case management hearing on 5 March 2024. Dismissal judgment issued 5 March 2024.
Withdrawn by claimant at case management hearing on 5 March 2024.
Claim for automatic unfair dismissal for raising health and safety matter contrary to s.100 ERA 1996 was withdrawn at case management hearing on 5 March 2024.
Detriment for raising health and safety matter contrary to s.44 ERA 1996 was withdrawn at case management hearing on 5 March 2024.
Victimisation claim contrary to s.27 Equality Act 2010 was withdrawn at case management hearing on 5 March 2024.
Breach of contract claim for failing to conduct regular one-to-one meetings was withdrawn at case management hearing on 5 March 2024.
Facts
The claimant, an Indian Hindu woman, was employed on a 9-month fixed-term contract as a Qualifications Assistant from September 2022 to June 2023. Her line manager, the second respondent, asked where she was from on their first meeting. The claimant alleged this question was repeated and that subsequent treatment (seating arrangements, exclusion from training, lack of 1-2-1s, extension of probation, not being introduced to the second respondent's family) was racially/religiously motivated. The respondents said the question was asked once in a well-meaning, multicultural context, and subsequent issues arose from poor communication and line management, not discrimination. The claimant's fixed-term contract was not renewed due to performance concerns.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all discrimination and harassment claims. It found many factual allegations did not occur as alleged. Where unwanted conduct did occur (e.g. exclusion from family introductions), the tribunal found no evidential link to the claimant's race or religion. The single question about origin was a genuine enquiry in a multicultural office. Subsequent difficulties were due to poor line management, miscommunication, and external frustrations – not discriminatory animus. The claimant failed to discharge the burden of proving conduct was related to her protected characteristics.
Practical note
A single, innocent question about a colleague's background at the start of employment, in a genuinely multicultural workplace, will not support an inference of discrimination for all subsequent workplace difficulties unless there is clear evidential linkage showing the protected characteristic motivated the later conduct.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3310519/2023
- Decision date
- 16 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 7
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Qualifications Assistant Level 1
- Service
- 9 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No