Claimant v London Underground Limited

The tribunal found that while unwanted conduct occurred, the claimant's evidence was not sufficiently credible or clear to establish the alleged sexual harassment and related conduct. The tribunal concluded there were no facts from which it could infer that harassment related to sex or of a sexual nature occurred.

The tribunal found no less favourable treatment proven compared to a hypothetical or actual comparator. There was no cogent evidence that any delays, outcomes, or processes were because of the claimant's sex. The comparisons with X were inappropriate as they were not in materially similar circumstances.

Similar to sex discrimination, the tribunal found no facts from which it could conclude that treatment was because of the claimant's race. There was insufficient clear and cogent evidence to support the claim, and the claimant's perception alone was insufficient.

The tribunal found that lengthy grievance investigations were not a PCP but rather isolated acts with continuing consequences. Even if they were a PCP, the claimant did not prove group disadvantage for disabled persons, and the respondents showed justification for their processes.

The tribunal found the alleged PCP (refusing relocation requests) was not established, or in the alternative, the claimant was not put at substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled persons. The respondents did not know or could not reasonably have been expected to know of the claimed disadvantage during the relevant period.

The tribunal found that while protected acts were established, the alleged detriments were not proven to be because of those protected acts. There were legitimate operational and procedural reasons for the respondents' conduct. The tribunal was not satisfied the protected acts materially influenced the treatment complained of.

The tribunal found the claimant did not make qualifying protected disclosures. The allegations lacked sufficient factual content and specificity to constitute disclosures of information tending to show relevant failures. The claimant did not have a reasonable belief the disclosures were made in the public interest.