Claimant v TSB Bank plc

The tribunal found that Ms Hadden's question ('is it because Ben is male and I'm female?') was asked in the context of trying to understand why the claimant said 'I don't want you here, I want Ben here.' The tribunal concluded Ms Hadden would have asked the same questions of a male comparator in the same circumstances, and the claimant's sex was no part of the reason for the treatment.

The tribunal found that Ms Hadden did not use the words alleged by the claimant. Ms Hadden asked 'Is it because you're from a similar culture?' but did not say 'because he is Asian'. The tribunal found Ms Hadden would have asked a white British comparator similar questions to understand the claimant's preference for her previous supervisor, and that the claimant's race was no part of the reason for Ms Hadden's questions.

The tribunal found the conduct was not unwanted given the claimant's previous open discussions with Ms Hadden about her culture and personal matters. The tribunal also found the claimant did not object at the time and took several weeks to raise the matter. Objectively, it was not reasonable for the conduct to have the proscribed effect. The conduct did not relate to sex.

The tribunal found the alleged conduct (shouting in front of customers, angry exchanges, blaming the claimant) was not made out on the facts. Where conduct did occur (e.g. coaching in the moment), the tribunal found it did not have the proscribed effect and did not relate to race. The claimant's failure to raise concerns at the time and equivocal later statements undermined her case.