Claimant v Enable Leisure and Culture
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was removed from the Monday session because she was the assistant coach, not the lead coach, and this was not related to sex. The tribunal found no evidence to support allegations of less favourable treatment compared to male comparators. The claimant did not establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment in respect of any allegation, and the burden of proof did not shift to the respondent.
The tribunal found that while certain emails constituted protected acts, the alleged detrimental treatment (termination of engagement, email from Mr Gouveia describing claimant's track record, blocking email access, ignoring grievance) was not because of the protected acts. The tribunal found Mr Gouveia's email was expressing genuine concern to HR, not intended to punish or retaliate. The grievance being ignored was regrettable but not because of a protected act. The tribunal found the claimant was not subjected to detrimental treatment.
Facts
The claimant was a casual tennis coach for the respondent charity from 2012 to June 2023, working approximately one hour per week alongside her self-employed coaching business. In November 2021, she was removed from a Monday coaching session because it was loss-making and only required one coach. The claimant was informed she would lose 9-day priority court booking unless she ran another session for the respondent. She started a Tuesday session in September 2022, which was poorly attended and she abandoned in January 2023. The respondent terminated her engagement in June 2023 after she had not worked for several months. The claimant alleged sex discrimination and victimisation, comparing her treatment to male coaches.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The tribunal found most claims were out of time and declined to extend time as not just and equitable. On the merits, the tribunal found no evidence of sex discrimination—the claimant's removal from the Monday session and loss of booking priority were due to business reasons (the session was loss-making), not her sex. The claimant failed to establish a prima facie case of less favourable treatment compared to male comparators. The victimisation claims also failed as the alleged detrimental treatment was not because of protected acts.
Practical note
A claimant pursuing multiple allegations of discrimination must establish a prima facie case with evidence of less favourable treatment; unfounded beliefs of discrimination, particularly where business decisions can be objectively explained and applied consistently across genders, will not shift the burden of proof to the employer.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2306022/2023
- Decision date
- 8 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- charity
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Tennis Coach
- Service
- 11 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No