Claimant v Care Assist Ltd

Dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. Tribunal found claimant was not an employee within the meaning of ERA 1996, but a casual/relief worker without mutuality of obligation. Respondent was not obliged to offer work and claimant not obliged to accept. Tribunal also found that even if claimant was an employee, sending the P45 did not amount to a dismissal but was merely notification to HMRC.

Dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. Tribunal found claimant was not an employee within the meaning of ERA 1996. Additionally, even if she had been employed and dismissed, the Tribunal found the reason for sending the P45 (if it amounted to dismissal) had nothing to do with the protected disclosure made in August 2021. The decision-maker (Mr Gohil) had no knowledge of the disclosure.

Tribunal found the claimant did make one protected disclosure in early August 2021 about the Team Leader administering her own asthma medication to a service user. However, the second alleged disclosure on 28 December 2021 was not a protected disclosure as it made no mention of breaches of any legal obligation under the Equality Act 2010.

Tribunal found claimant was subjected to a detriment (not being allowed to work at Whitehall Road), but that this was not on the ground of the protected disclosure. The decision was made by Gemma Dimano and was due to the investigation into the events of 5 January 2022 and later lack of available work at that site. The protected disclosure played no part in the decision. The second alleged detriment (being told to leave the premises) did not occur as the claimant misinterpreted what Mrs Faulkner said.

Tribunal found the Team Leader was not an appropriate comparator due to material differences: she was a permanent employee, there were different decision-makers, and the claimant's case included an additional element (the clash with Mrs Faulkner). The burden of proof did not shift under s.136 EqA. Even if it had, the Tribunal found the decisions by Ms Dimano and Mr Gohil were in no sense whatsoever to do with the claimant's race.

Tribunal found that while some conduct by Mrs Faulkner occurred (arranging a supervision meeting at short notice, raising her voice during an argument, staring when accused of being racist), none of this conduct related to the claimant's race. Mrs Faulkner had good reasons for the supervision meeting unrelated to race, the voice-raising was mutual during a heated argument, and the staring was due to being stunned at the accusation and her hearing impairment. The conduct did not have the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment.

Withdrawn by claimant during closing submissions. Dismissed upon withdrawal by agreement.

Withdrawn by claimant during closing submissions. Dismissed upon withdrawal by agreement.