Claimant v Vodafone Group Services Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The Respondent conceded the unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed purportedly for redundancy, but the dismissal was unfair. The concession reflects that the respondent could not show a fair process or genuine redundancy reason.
The tribunal found the claimant was subjected to victimisation in two instances: being placed on garden leave from 15 September 2022 and being dismissed. The tribunal found that the protected acts (raising sex discrimination allegations on 31 March and 1 April 2022, and a grievance on 22 July 2022) were at least a more than trivial influence in the decision to dismiss. The tribunal found that management abruptly turned against the claimant after she raised discrimination concerns. The tribunal found the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof that the protected acts did not influence the dismissal. The tribunal inferred adverse treatment from lack of disclosure (WhatsApp messages between HR and senior manager), opaque redundancy process, and strong emotional reaction to the grievance. Other allegations of victimisation failed either because they pre-dated the protected acts or were not made out on the evidence.
Withdrawn by the claimant.
Withdrawn by the claimant (save for victimisation claims which proceeded).
Withdrawn by the claimant.
Facts
The claimant was employed from January 2017 as Analyst Relations Manager, promoted in 2018 to lead a small team. She had been a 'top performer' for four consecutive years. In early 2022 a dispute arose with her line manager, Mr Kapadia, over analyst summit format and budget. On 31 March and 1 April 2022 the claimant raised sex discrimination allegations to HR (Ms Kelly). Shortly after, senior management began discussing her potential exit via redundancy, performance improvement or disciplinary routes. On 22 July 2022 the claimant submitted a formal grievance alleging sex discrimination. She was placed on garden leave in September 2022 (alone among 77 employees facing redundancy) and dismissed for redundancy on 31 October 2022.
Decision
The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim succeeded (conceded by respondent). The victimisation claim partly succeeded: the tribunal found the claimant was victimised by being placed on garden leave and by dismissal. The tribunal found the respondent failed to prove the protected acts (raising sex discrimination) did not influence the dismissal. The tribunal drew adverse inferences from lack of disclosure of WhatsApp messages, opaque redundancy processes, and abrupt change in management attitude after discrimination complaints. Other victimisation allegations failed. Remedy adjourned.
Practical note
Raising discrimination complaints can lead to victimisation even in the context of an apparently genuine redundancy exercise if the protected acts were more than a trivial influence on the decision to dismiss, and tribunals will draw adverse inferences from failures to disclose relevant communications and from opaque processes.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2211400/2022
- Decision date
- 9 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 8
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- telecoms
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Analyst Relations Manager
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister