Claimant v AQA Education

The tribunal found that the claimant had not proved facts from which it could conclude that less favourable treatment on grounds of sex occurred. The tribunal accepted the respondent's explanations for treatment were unrelated to sex—relating instead to performance, behaviour, and probationary suitability issues.

The tribunal found no evidence that race played any part in the respondent's treatment of the claimant. All treatment was explained by legitimate performance and conduct concerns. The tribunal noted that comparators relied upon (Ying Dong, Ilyas Abdullahi) shared protected characteristics with the claimant, undermining the discrimination case.

The tribunal concluded that no conduct complained of was related to sex. While some conduct (e.g. being escorted off premises) may have been unwanted, it was not related to sex and it was not reasonable for the claimant to perceive it as creating an intimidating or hostile environment related to sex.

The tribunal found no features of the factual matrix that could properly lead to the conclusion that any conduct was related to race. The claimant was unreasonably prone to take offence. The tribunal accepted that treatment related to work performance and behaviour, not race.

The claimant lacked the requisite two years' qualifying service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. This claim was dismissed at an earlier stage of the proceedings.