Claimant v King's College London
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found Heather Kneale did not decline to move the alcohol box. The claimant failed to show she had repeatedly requested its removal or linked it to her religious beliefs in any written communication. The tribunal found no evidence the box was not moved due to the claimant's religion and preferred more likely non-discriminatory explanations (lack of awareness, storage space, oversight). The claimant failed to shift the burden of proof.
The tribunal found the alleged comments about 'decorating toys' were not made. The meeting on 18 April 2023 was held via Teams while the claimant worked from home, so the Ganesh idol was not visible, making the comment implausible. The allegation was never mentioned in the claimant's email to the Professor or her meeting with Bethan Jones. The tribunal found the relationship breakdown was due to disputes over office attendance and management, not religion.
Facts
The claimant, a Hindu woman, was employed as an Operations Officer at Kings College London from January to April 2023. She resigned after approximately three months, alleging that a crate of alcohol was not removed from her office despite her religious beliefs, and that her manager made offensive comments about her Ganesh idol referring to it as a 'toy'. The relationship with the second respondent deteriorated over disputes about remote working arrangements and management style.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the claimant had not proven Heather Kneale declined to remove the alcohol for religious reasons, noting the claimant never raised the issue in writing and preferred the respondents' evidence. The tribunal also found the alleged 'toys' comment was not made, as the relevant meeting was held remotely via Teams when the idol would not have been visible, and the allegation was never mentioned in contemporaneous complaints.
Practical note
Credibility is critical in discrimination cases: tribunals may reject claims where the claimant's evidence is inconsistent, unsupported by contemporaneous documents, and contradicted by their own conduct (such as failing to mention allegations in resignation emails or complaints made at the time).
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2210867/2023
- Decision date
- 12 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- —
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Operations Officer
- Service
- 3 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lawyer