Claimant v Mitie Limited

The tribunal found that proven acts of harassment amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and formed a significant part of the claimant's decision to resign. The decision by Ms Parmar to require unpaid leave and the swapping of the grievance officer added to the repudiatory breach. The harassment sufficiently influenced the overall repudiatory breach to render the constructive dismissal discriminatory.

The tribunal found that colleagues regularly referred to the claimant as 'Mummy', subjected her to sexist banter such as 'All women and money are evil', and ostracised her. The tribunal found these acts had the purpose or effect of creating a hostile, degrading or humiliating environment for the claimant related to her sex.

The tribunal found that colleagues regularly insulted the claimant about her height and treated her differently because she was in the over-40 age bracket working with colleagues in their 20s and 30s. This had the purpose or effect of creating a degrading or humiliating atmosphere.

On or about 3 November 2023, Ben referred to a Chinese doctor as a 'Chinese C-t' in front of the claimant. The tribunal found this was a serious and unacceptable act of racism that had the effect of creating an offensive environment for the claimant, related to the race of another person.

By virtue of section 212 Equality Act 2010, conduct that amounts to harassment cannot also amount to a detriment for direct discrimination purposes. The proven acts of less favourable treatment succeeded as harassment claims and therefore could not also succeed as direct discrimination claims.

The proven acts of less favourable treatment succeeded as harassment claims related to age and therefore could not also succeed as direct discrimination claims under the statutory bar in section 212 Equality Act 2010.

Although the tribunal assumed the claimant had done protected acts, it found no evidence that the alleged detriments (ostracism, chilli sauce incident, abusive text, breach of confidentiality, or inadequate grievance investigation) were because of those protected acts. The harassment was found to be because colleagues had little respect for women and the claimant personally, not because she had complained.

The tribunal assumed without deciding that protected disclosures were made on 13 September 2023 and in the grievance of 6 November 2023. However, it found no evidence that colleagues were aware of the disclosures or that the proven acts of detriment (harassment) were in any way influenced by the alleged disclosures. The harassment was motivated by lack of respect for women and the claimant, not by whistleblowing.

The tribunal found that the alleged detriments (breach of confidentiality, ostracism, chilli sauce incident, abusive text, and failures in the grievance process) were either not proven as detriments or, where proven, were not because the claimant had made protected disclosures. There was no evidence that perpetrators were aware of any protected disclosures.

The tribunal found that Ms Smithson stopped investigating the grievance due to annual leave and workload, not because of protected disclosures. The proven acts of harassment that led to constructive dismissal were not influenced by any protected disclosures. The tribunal was satisfied that the acts of harassment were because of lack of respect for women, not because of whistleblowing.