Mr M Ankrah v The Governing Body of The King Alfred Federation: 2302763/2022 and Others

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2302763/2022, 2303105/2022, 2300462/2023

Between

Mr M AnkrahClaimant

The Governing Body of The King Alfred FederationRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Rea

Ms Bell (instructed by counsel) for claimant

In person for respondent

Date 30 March 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]The complaint of direct race discrimination is not well-founded and is dismissed.

[2]The following complaint of harassment related to race is well-founded and succeeds: a. That Ms Rendell regularly since the previous claim to the Tribunal until 6 November 2023 would roll her eyes at the claimant, mutter comments and behave with hostility when her eyes met with the claimant.

[3]The remaining complaints of harassment related to race are not wellfounded and are dismissed.

[4]The complaint of victimisation is not well-founded and is dismissed.

REASONS

[5]The claimant is employed by the respondent as a teacher. He has worked there since September 2015. In 2018, he brought a claim of race discrimination. This was partly upheld in July 2019 and he was awarded £3,500 in compensation. He has now brought further claims alleging that he has suffered acts of victimisation and further acts of direct race discrimination or harassment.

[6]There are three claims altogether. The first (2302760/2022) was bought on 12 August 2022. The main focus of the complaint was a verbal warning which Mr Ankrah was given in March that year, and he named the Head Teacher, Ms Newton, together with a colleague, Ms Rendell, as individual respondents. A further claim followed on 3 September 2022 (2303105/2022). At that time his grievance over the verbal warning and some other issues were still being considered. It was essentially a restatement of the original complaint with the addition of some further points.

[7]The third claim (230046212/2023) followed on 28 January 2023. This time complaints were added about actions taken by the Executive Head Teacher, Ms Wong. Claims and issues

[8]The claims against the individual respondents, Ms Newton and Ms Rendell were withdrawn by the claimant at the Preliminary Hearing on 16 January 2024 and were dismissed.

[9]All three claims were consolidated and heard together.

[10]The claimant made an application dated 6 November 2023 to amend his claim adding new allegations relating to events which had happened since his claims had been submitted. The respondent accepted that the claimant’s allegations were being made in time. This application was granted at the Preliminary Hearing on 28 March 2024.

[11]On the first day of the full merits hearing, the Tribunal identified that the List of Issues contained one allegation about an incident on 30 November 2023 and one allegation about repeated conduct continuing until 30 November 2023. The Tribunal determined that to the extent these allegations related to events happening after 6 November 2023 they were outside the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

[12]The Tribunal also raised the fact that the List of Issues did not identify the date when one of the alleged protected acts took place. The Tribunal suggested that as the claimant had brought a previous employment tribunal claim in 2018 which was a protected act pre-dating all of the alleged acts of victimisation, there was no need for him to rely on any further alleged protected acts. The claimant agreed he was not relying on any additional protected acts.

[13]The claimant’s claims are:a. Direct race discrimination;

b. Harassment related to race; and

c. Victimisation.

[14]The List of Issues is appended to this Judgment and Written Reasons. Procedure, documents and evidence

[15]The Tribunal referred to an electronic bundle comprising 1407 pages together with a separate pleadings bundle comprising 185 pages. The respondent disclosed an additional 24 pages in response to matters raised in the claimant’s witness statement. The Tribunal agreed to admit these despite their late disclosure as they were relevant and did not put the claimant at a disadvantage. They were added to the main hearing bundle as pages 1408-1431.

[16]The Tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and the following witnesses on behalf of the respondent:a. Mr Christopher Maher;

b. Ms Kathryn Wong;

c. Ms Jade Heat;

d. Ms Marzena Rendell.

[17]Ms Elizabeth Newton did not appear as a witness for the respondent despite the fact that her evidence would have been highly relevant to the issues in this case. The Tribunal was told by the respondent’s representative that Ms Newton had retired and had refused to give evidence due to her ill health which she felt had been caused by the claimant. The claimant was unhappy about this but confirmed he was not seeking a witness summons to compel Ms Newton’s attendance.

[18]The Tribunal’s assessment of the witnesses was as follows.

[19]The Tribunal considered that the claimant believed what he was saying but he had misunderstood a lot of things, such as the distinction between formal and informal disciplinary process. Although the claimant genuinely felt hard done by, it was difficult to see why the claimant believed most of the things he complained about were anything to do with his race. His scattergun approach to the proceedings did make his evidence less credible and compelling at times.

[20]The Tribunal considered that Mr Maher was an honest and credible witness but he did not come across as having had much influence on management in terms of the decisions made. It seemed to us that he did not put his views forward that strongly to the respondent.

[21]The Tribunal considered that Ms Wong was a very credible witness and we felt assured she knew what she was doing, particularly in looking into the claimant’s grievance relating to Ms Heat.

[22]The Tribunal considered Ms Heat to be a credible witness who is conscientious in her work.

[23]The Tribunal considered Ms Rendell to be an honest witness. At times she came across as somewhat confrontational which is consistent with the evidence and the Tribunal could see why she and the claimant would be likely to clash. The Law Time limits

The Law

[24]Time limits in which to present complaints to the Employment Tribunal are governed by section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 (EA).

[25]However, an act of discrimination which “extends over a period” shall be treated as done at the end of that period under section 123(3) of the Equality Act 2010.

[26]In some situations, discrimination continues over a period of time, sometimes up to the date of leaving employment. If so the time limit in which to present a Claim Form to the Employment Tribunal runs from the end of that period. The common, although technically inaccurate, name for this is ‘continuing discrimination’.

[27]In Hendricks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

[2003] IRLR 96

, the Court of Appeal held that a worker need not be restricted to proving a discriminatory policy, rule, regime or practice, if s/he could show that a sequence of individual incidents were evidence of a ‘continuing discriminatory state of affairs’. Direct discrimination

[28]Section 13 of the EA says that: A person(a) (A) discriminates against another

(b) (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others. Harassment

[29]Section 26 of the EA says that A person(a) (A) harasses another

(b) (B) if— (a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and (b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of— (i) violating B's dignity, or (ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B. Victimisation

[30]Section 27 of the EA says that(1) A person (A) victimises another person (B) if A subjects B to a detriment because— (a) B does a protected act, or (b) A believes that B has done, or may do, a protected act.

(2) Each of the following is a protected act— (a) bringing proceedings under this Act; (b) giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under this Act; (c) doing any other thing for the purposes of or in connection with this Act; (d) making an allegation (whether or not express) that A or another person has contravened this Act.

(3) Giving false evidence or information, or making a false allegation, is not a protected act if the evidence or information is given, or the allegation is made, in bad faith.

(4) This section applies only where the person subjected to a detriment is an individual.

(5) The reference to contravening this Act includes a reference to committing a breach of an equality clause or rule.

[31]Section 136 Equality Act 2010 - Burden of proof(1) This section applies to any proceedings relating to a contravention of this Act.

(2) If there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention occurred.

(3) But subsection (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision.

(4) The reference to a contravention of this Act includes a reference to a breach of an equality clause or rule.

Findings of fact

[32]The Tribunal decided all the findings referred to below on the balance of probability, having considered all of the evidence given by the witnesses during the hearing, together with documents referred to by them. Any failure to mention any specific part of the evidence should not be taken as an indication that we failed to consider it.

[33]We have only made those findings of fact necessary to determine the issues. It has not been necessary to determine every fact in dispute where it was not relevant to the issues between the parties.

[34]The Tribunal accepts the respondent’s evidence that Ms Rendell was given a disciplinary warning for making the comment to the claimant which was held to be racist by the Tribunal in the previous proceedings in July 2019.

[35]The respondent took some steps to reduce the amount of interactions between the claimant and Ms Rendell but they were still required to see each other at team meetings and generally around the school. The claimant did not raise any further concerns about Ms Rendell’s behaviour until March 2022 which is a substantial time gap. Although, the Covid pandemic meant there were some periods when teachers were not physically in school there were still significant periods when the claimant and Ms Rendell worked together without any issues being raised.

[36]The claimant did not seek to complain about Ms Rendell’s behaviour until after other issues arose with the respondent. This does not mean that it was not happening but that the claimant did not perceive it to be serious enough to raise a grievance during that time period.

[37]Did the meeting referred to in allegation 3.1.1 of the List of Issues happen on 4 February 2022 or 11 February 2022? The documentary evidence before the Tribunal points to this meeting having taken place on 4 February 2022 and it is unlikely that Ms Newton would have waited until 11 February 2022 to discuss the allegations with him given their seriousness. The claimant accepted that Ms Newton did speak to him about the allegations on 4 February 2022 but he did not accept this was a proper meeting. The Tribunal finds that this meeting did take place on 4 February 2022 and that it was a meeting under the informal part of the respondent’s disciplinary policy (p422-460). The claimant was issued an informal verbal warning (p616-619).

[38]On 2 March 2022, did Ms Rendell say in front of the claimant’s class ‘I am sorry that your teacher does not read his emails’? In Ms Rendell’s witness statement (para 7) she denies making this comment and this is consistent with the denial in her investigation interview (p695-697). On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal finds that Ms Rendell did not make this specific comment although she made her exasperation with the claimant clear in other ways.

[39]On or around 21 February 2022, did Ms Rendell comment while the claimant was engaged in a conversation with another member of staff about a new school road scheme ‘can people not read road signs?’ Ms Rendell denies making this comment. No witness came forward to substantiate the allegation even though others were present at the time. However, on the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal finds that the comment was made.

[40]Did Ms Rendell regularly since the previous claim to the Tribunal until 6 November 2023 roll her eyes at the claimant, mutter comments and behave with hostility when her eyes met with the claimant? In the course of the respondent’s investigation, several witnesses confirmed that they sometimes observed Ms Rendell rolling her eyes when the claimant was speaking during team meetings and that on some occasions she interrupted and spoke over him. Ms Rendell admitted that she may have sometimes interrupted the claimant because he would talk a lot and she wanted to move the meeting along. The Tribunal finds that Ms Rendell did on occasion at team meetings roll her eyes at the claimant, mutter comments and behave with hostility towards him although some of this behaviour may have been unconscious.

[41]Did Ms Heat shout at the claimant during an assembly on 13 July 2022? This allegation was first raised by the claimant in his grievance submitted on 15 July 2022 (p720). The context of this allegation was that Ms Heat was directing a dress rehearsal. The claimant identified a problem with the sound system which he wanted to fix whereas Ms Heat’s priority was to get through the dress rehearsal in the time remaining. Ms Heat’s evidence was that the assembly hall was busy and she had to speak loudly to be heard by the claimant across the hall and over the sound system but that she did not shout at the claimant (p859). The respondent investigated the claimant’s grievance and found Ms Heat did not shout at the claimant. The Tribunal also finds that Ms Heat’s evidence is credible and that she had a justified reason for raising her voice when speaking to the claimant.

[42]Did Ms Heat accuse the claimant of labelling her as racist within the earshot of pupils during a lesson on 15 July 2022? Ms Heat admits going to speak to the claimant and that they had a conversation in the science cupboard adjacent to the classroom where the claimant was teaching a class. Ms Heat was concerned the claimant thought she had treated a child differently due to race and wanted to resolve the matter without delay. It is quite possible that their conversation may have been audible in the classroom. The Tribunal finds that this allegation is substantially true.

[43]Did the respondent fail to prevent harassment of the claimant by staff members and in particular Ms Marzena Rendell? The Tribunal has found that Ms Rendell did harass the claimant and therefore the respondent did fail to prevent this from happening. Ms Rendell was issued with a warning following the finding made against her in the previous Tribunal claim. The respondent took some steps to limit the amount of contact between Ms Rendell and the claimant however they would still come into contact at team meetings and more generally in the course of working. The Tribunal finds that there was insufficient action taken by the respondent to correct Ms Rendell’s behaviour and establish a more respectful working relationship between Ms Rendell and the claimant or, if this was not possible, to separate them completely. Furthermore, when the claimant complained of Ms Rendell’s behaviour towards him, this was partially substantiated by several witnesses and yet the respondent found there was no case to answer. The Tribunal finds that no other staff member harassed the claimant.

[44]Did the respondent deny the claimant the opportunity to undertake further studies as part of his Career Professional Development? The Tribunal accepts Ms Wong’s evidence as to why she did not support the claimant in doing this particular course. Ms Wong discussed the requirements of the course with the course provider. The document at p420 shows that the claimant needed to be in a senior role when doing that course to be able to produce the required portfolio of evidence. The claimant was not in a senior role at the time and so didn’t meet that criteria. The course was not suitable for him at this point in his career even though he had worked in a senior role in the past. The Tribunal finds that although the respondent did not support the claimant in doing this specific course, Ms Wong suggested an alternative course that was more suitable and which she would support the claimant in undertaking. The claimant decided he did not wish to undertake this alternative course.

[45]Did Ms Wong threaten the claimant in a letter dated 21 November 2022 if he pursued an investigation into complaints against Ms Heat? This relates to the letter which Ms Wong sent to the claimant at p862 of the bundle. Ms Wong’s evidence was that the claimant was refusing to drop the matter after his concerns about Ms Heat’s work had been looked into and not upheld. This was undermining Ms Wong’s authority who had made her decision clear. Under cross-examination when the claimant was asked if he had said he would drop his discrimination claim if management upheld his complaint about Ms Heat’s work, he initially accepted he said “something along those lines” and then changed this to “no, don’t admit, not what I said”. On balance of probabilities, the Tribunal finds the claimant did say that. The Tribunal finds that what Ms Wong stated in this letter was not a threat. She was being clear with the claimant that this matter was considered closed and that if he continued to pursue this allegation this would cause difficulties.

[46]Did Ms Wong threaten the claimant in a letter dated 21 November 2022 if response to future complaints by parents? The Tribunal was satisfied that Ms Wong was being clear with the claimant that the way he had behaved in the meeting with this parent had escalated the conflict rather than resolve it and if he behaved in a similar way in the future she would be forced to deal with this differently. This is effective management practice making the claimant aware of how he needs to amend his behaviour moving forwards. The Tribunal finds that this was not a threat by Ms Wong.

[47]Did the respondent isolate the claimant from other staff during work? At paragraph 98 of his witness statement the claimant refers to p1058 as evidence of this allegation. However, the respondent demonstrated during the hearing that this timetable related to a different time period entirely. The claimant was working in a different classroom and with smaller groups of students. Even if he felt isolated this was a direct consequence of him not doing what Ms Newton asked him to do so he couldn’t teach his normal classes. He didn’t work alongside other staff members much anyway as he would teach their class groups when they were absent or on PPA. He still went to team meetings so not isolated from colleagues in that sense.

[48]Did the respondent prevent the claimant from performing his agreed role at work? The Tribunal finds that the respondent acted with good reason in restricting the claimant from teaching certain classes because he hadn’t complied with what Ms Newton asked him to do in preparing adequate lesson plans in advance.

[49]Did the respondent fail to progress his pay scale? The Tribunal finds that the claimant made an application in 2023 which was late but falls outside the scope of his claim in any event. The respondent’s policy is from p1386- 1388 of the bundle. Ms Wong’s evidence was that the claimant was advised how to progress from Upper pay scale 1 to 2 and what higher expectation of performance he would need to meet to achieve this. Onus was on claimant to make a valid application and demonstrate he met the targets set for him over 2 previous years. He didn’t do that and so there was no reason for the respondent to move him from Upper pay scale 1 to 2.

[50]The Tribunal determines that the allegation of harassment related to race under 3.1.17 was made within the statutory time limit as it was repeated conduct throughout the period until the claimant brought his Tribunal claims and potentially continued afterwards. The Tribunal determines this is conduct continuing over a period in accordance with section 123(3) of the EA. Direct race discrimination/harassment related to race

[51]Allegations 3.1.1 to 3.1.7 relating to events leading to the claimant being issued with a verbal warning. The Tribunal considers that Ms Newton was responding dynamically to a serious safeguarding incident and her decision to interrupt the claimant’s lesson to summon him to a meeting to discuss the allegations against him were reasonable in that context. As the meeting took place under the informal part of the respondent’s disciplinary policy (p422-460), the claimant had no right to be accompanied or be given advance notice and there was no need for him to prepare. Notes were taken of the meeting (p554) but there is no evidence the claimant requested them. The disciplinary policy requires the employee to receive confirmation of disciplinary discussions which was achieved by issuing the outcome letter to the claimant (p616-619). There was no need to share notes with the claimant (p426 para 4.4). The Tribunal determines this was not less favourable treatment because of race or unwanted conduct related to race.

[52]It is factually correct that Ms Newton asked the parent who had made the verbal complaint about the claimant to put it in writing. The Tribunal accepts that this was to formalise the complaint so it could be dealt with and this was not intended to encourage or escalate the complaint in anyway. Ms Newton was approached at the gate by one of the parents. The allegation made was serious enough to warrant being put in writing and the Tribunal accepts the respondent’s evidence that this was not an unusual step to take where the complaint was a potentially serious one. The Tribunal determines this was not less favourable treatment because of race or unwanted conduct related to race.

[53]It is not in dispute that a copy of the written complaints was not shared with the claimant (p555). The claimant was told the nature and substance of the complaints but not the identity of the parents. The Tribunal considers that having this information withheld did not disadvantage the claimant as how the incident came to the respondent’s attention was not the issue, it was how the claimant behaved and handled it. The claimant did challenge the non-disclosure of the parents’ names (p623). Ms Newton explained to the claimant this was for the protection of these parents and their children (p627). Nothing in the disciplinary policy says that an employee has to receive all evidence under the informal part of the process. The Tribunal determines this was not less favourable treatment because of race or unwanted conduct related to race.

[54]The Tribunal concludes that there was no failure by the respondent to investigate any of the complaints made against the claimant. These include the complaint referred to above by two parents in relation to Child V, two complaints made by Ms Heat, complaints from three other colleagues (Helen, Leah and Carla pgs 637,736 and 385) and the complaint made by the mother of Child F. The Tribunal determines this was not less favourable

[55]The claimant was issued with a verbal warning under the informal part of the respondent’s disciplinary policy in relation to the complaints made by parents about Child V. It was not a formal warning. The Tribunal determines this was not less favourable treatment because of race or unwanted conduct related to race.

[56]The Tribunal concludes that Ms Newton would have acted the same way if the allegations had been made against one of the named comparators or a hypothetical White or Asian teacher. It was therefore not less favourable treatment because of race. Although it may have been unwanted conduct it was not related to race. The Tribunal determined that Ms Newton’s actions did not have the prescribed purpose or effect on the claimant at the time and it was only being issued with a verbal warning that caused him to feel aggrieved.

[57]Allegation 3.1.8. The Tribunal concludes that it was reasonable for the respondent to investigate the complaints made about the claimant by Helen Efrat and Carla Fitch (p637 and p385). The fact that his colleagues could not find teaching plans for his classes when they needed to cover them in his absence was a cause for concern. It is not the case that the respondent gave unjustified consideration to these complaints. The Tribunal determines this was not less favourable treatment because of race or unwanted conduct related to race.

[58]Allegation 3.1.9. The Tribunal finds that the claimant was not doing the same role as Ms Heat and so she is not a valid comparator. The claimant had agreed to teach 6 classes of different ages and so if this created more demanding requirements in relation to lesson planning it was because of the nature of that role, not because of something particular to the claimant. However, the Tribunal is not persuaded that more demanding requirements were placed on the claimant in any event. The claimant taught more age groups and so his lesson plans had to incorporate differentiation between pupils of different ages and abilities but he was delivering teaching across a much narrower range of subjects and so had a more limited scope of lessons to plan. The Tribunal determines this was not less favourable

[59]Allegation 3.1.10. The Tribunal concludes that in her emails to the claimant following their meeting on 20 May 2022 (p686-689) Ms Newton was communicating clear directions to the claimant to prepare thorough lesson plans. When he failed to follow these instructions after being given several opportunities to do so, the claimant was prevented from teaching those classes. The Tribunal is satisfied this was reasonable and appropriate management of the claimant’s performance. If anything, Ms Newton would have been justified in commencing formal performance management of the claimant at this point but was perhaps hesitant to do so because of the fact he had previously brought a successful employment tribunal claim against the respondent. The Tribunal determines this was not less favourable

[60]Allegation 3.1.11. The claimant was stopped from teaching certain lessons because he had repeatedly refused to comply with what was required from him by Ms Newton. This necessarily led to him carrying out a more restricted role. The claimant had an unjustified sense of grievance because he failed to recognise the authority of Ms Newton to issue him with management instructions regarding his lesson planning. During the hearing the claimant stated that he believed he knew better than Ms Newton and so chose not to follow these instructions. The Tribunal determines this was not less favourable treatment because of race or unwanted conduct related to race.

[61]Allegation 3.1.12. The claimant made two formal grievances on 8 June and 21 July. The claimant was unable to say in his evidence what was inadequate about the investigation into these grievances (rather than just not accepting the outcomes). The claimant doesn’t point to any investigatory steps or other actions that should have been taken that weren’t. All the correct people were interviewed. The claimant’s complaints against Ms Newton went before a panel of governors. Ms Heat’s work was thoroughly reviewed as Ms Wong explained in her evidence. This allegation therefore fails on the facts. Even if there were any flaws in the grievance process they had nothing to do with race. The Tribunal determines this was not less favourable treatment because of race or unwanted conduct related to race.

[62]Allegation 3.1.13. The Tribunal understands this to be an allegation that the respondent should have put the claimant on a formal performance management process. This is an odd thing for him to criticise and it is difficult to see how that could be a detriment or unwanted conduct. The Tribunal considers it is usually best practice to try to resolve performance concerns informally first before resorting to formal performance management. The Tribunal determines this was not less favourable

[63]Allegation 3.1.14. The Tribunal has found that this comment was not made by Ms Rendell and so this allegation fails on its facts.

[64]Allegation 3.1.15. The Tribunal has found that this comment was made by Ms Rendell. However, the evidence is not clear that this was targeted at the claimant specifically given the use of the word “people”. The Tribunal considers that Ms Rendell was more likely to have been making a general observation out of frustration that a number of people, not just the claimant, had been confused about the school road scheme and the claimant may have taken this personally because of his history with Ms Rendell. The Tribunal determines this was not less favourable treatment because of race or unwanted conduct related to race.

[65]Allegation 3.1.16. This was outside the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as it happened after the claimant’s claims were brought and also post-dates his written application to amend his claim to include some later allegations.

[66]Allegation 3.1.17. The Tribunal has found Ms Rendell did behave in this manner towards the claimant on some occasions at team meetings during this time period. The history of Ms Rendell being found to have made a racist comment about the claimant is enough to establish facts from which the Tribunal could conclude that discrimination has occurred. The burden of proof therefore shifted to the respondent to show the treatment was in no way related to race. The Tribunal carefully considered whether Ms Rendell’s behaviour stemmed from her general impatience with or intolerance of others and somewhat direct communication style that can come across as hostile. However, there was no specific evidence of the claimant behaving this way towards others in team meetings. The Tribunal was persuaded that the claimant did not like the claimant and this was likely to be for a variety of reasons, not least the fact that he brought a successful claim that she had made a racist comment about him previously.

[67]The respondent failed to satisfy the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that race did not have a significant influence on Ms Rendell’s treatment of the claimant, even if some of this was unconscious. The Tribunal concludes that this was unwanted conduct. The Tribunal further accepts the claimant’s evidence that overall this treatment had the prescribed effect. Had the allegation been limited to Ms Rendell rolling her eyes, the Tribunal would not have been persuaded that this in isolation had the prescribed effect or if it had that this was reasonable. This is because of the claimant’s own evidence that he considered this to be acceptable behaviour, in response to a complaint about the claimant rolling his eyes during a meeting when a parent of a pupil was speaking. Overall, the Tribunal is satisfied it was reasonable for the treatment to have the prescribed effect on the claimant. The Tribunal determines that this was harassment related to race.

[68]Allegation 3.1.18. The Tribunal found this allegation did not happen and so it fails on its facts.

[69]Allegation 3.1.19. The Tribunal has found that this allegation is substantially true. The Tribunal agrees with the respondent’s assessment that this conversation should have taken place at a different time in a different place and that both Ms Heat and the claimant were responsible for continuing it. The Tribunal accepts this was unwanted conduct. However, the Tribunal concludes that Ms Heat would have taken the same action if she believed a White or Asian teacher had accused her of treating a pupil less favourably. The Tribunal determines this was not less favourable treatment because of race or unwanted conduct related to race.

[70]Allegation 3.1.20. See the Tribunal’s decision under allegation 3.1.12.

[71]Allegation 3.1.21. See the Tribunal’s decision under allegation 3.1.12.

[72]Allegation 3.1.22. The Tribunal has found that the respondent failed to prevent the harassment of the claimant by Ms Rendell. However, the Tribunal concludes that the respondent’s insufficient actions were not because of or related to race. The respondent simply wanted the problem to go away and would have acted the same if the claimant was a hypothetical White or Asian teacher. The Tribunal determines this was not less favourable treatment because of race or unwanted conduct related to race.

[73]Allegation 3.1.23. The Tribunal has found that the respondent did not deny the claimant the opportunity to undertake further studies. Ms Wong did not support the claimant undertaking a specific course as he did not meet the criteria but confirmed she would support him if he wished to undertake an alternative course. The Tribunal determines this was not less favourable

[74]Allegation 3.1.24. The Tribunal has found that what Ms Wong said to the claimant was not a threat. This allegation therefore fails on its facts.

[75]Allegation 3.1.25. The Tribunal has found that what Ms Wong said to the claimant was not a threat. This allegation therefore fails on its facts.

[76]Allegation 3.1.26. The claimant was not clear what action he says the respondent should have taken. The respondent concluded that the parental complaint was justified and dealt with it by trying to de-escalate the situation and giving management guidance to claimant. The Tribunal determines that this was appropriate action in the circumstances. This allegation therefore fails on its facts. Victimisation

[77]It is not in dispute that the claimant performed a protected act when he submitted his previous Tribunal claim in July 2019.

[78]Allegation 4.3.1. The Tribunal found the claimant was not isolated from other staff members and so this allegation fails on its facts.

[79]Allegation 4.3.2. The Tribunal found that the claimant was prevented from performing his agreed role at work but this was because the claimant failed to follow the reasonable management instruction to perform adequate lesson plans. There was no evidence to suggest this was because he had brought previous Tribunal proceedings against the respondent. This was several years after that claim was brought and there was no suggestion of the claimant being restricted from carrying out his role prior to this point. Contemporaneous documents made clear why the claimant was being stopped from teaching those classes and he was given several opportunities to prevent this from happening. The Tribunal determines that to the extent this amounts to a detriment, he was not subjected to it because he committed a protected act.

[80]Allegation 4.3.3. The Tribunal has found that no formal disciplinary actions were taken against the claimant. Only an informal verbal warning was issued to the claimant and this was warranted. The respondent could have taken more serious action against the claimant but chose not to do so. The Tribunal determines that even if this amounts to a detriment, he was not subjected to it because he committed a protected act.

[81]Allegation 4.3.4. The Tribunal has found that the respondent did not fail to adequately investigate the claimant’s complaints. The Tribunal was not convinced some of the outcomes reached were consistent with the evidence uncovered during these investigations, in particular regarding Ms Rendell’s behaviour towards the claimant. However, the specific allegation fails on its facts.

[82]Allegation 4.3.5. The Tribunal considers this to be a very general allegation which was not properly particularised. The claimant hasn’t pointed to any specific act by the respondent that prevented him from progressing other than the allegation at 3.1 23. This allegation therefore was not made out by the claimant.

[83]Allegation 4.3.6. See the Tribunal’s decision under allegation 3.1.23. The Tribunal determines the claimant was not subjected to a detriment because he committed a protected act.

[84]Allegation 4.3.7. The Tribunal has found that the claimant was not progressed on the respondent’s pay scale because he did not make an in time application that demonstrated he fulfilled the criteria under the policy. The Tribunal determines that the claimant was not subjected to a detriment because he committed a protected act.

Remedy

[85]The Tribunal has determined that one allegation of harassment related to race is well-founded and succeeds. The Tribunal did not hear evidence or submissions from the parties in relation to remedy in light of the fact that this would depend on the allegation or allegations upheld. The appropriate remedy will be determined at a separate remedy hearing, the date of which will be notified to the parties. Appendix: List of Issues Time limits2.1 Given the date the claim form was presented and the dates of early conciliation, any complaint about something that happened three months before the deadline for presenting a claim may not have been brought in time.

2.2 Were the discrimination and victimisation complaints made within the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010? The Tribunal will decide:2.2.1 Was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (plus early conciliation extension) of the act to which the complaint relates?

2.2.2 If not, was there conduct extending over a period?

2.2.3 If so, was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (plus early conciliation extension) of the end of that period?

2.2.4 If not, were the claims made within a further period that the Tribunal thinks is just and equitable? The Tribunal will decide:2.2.4.1 Why were the complaints not made to the Tribunal in time?

2.2.4.2 In any event, is it just and equitable in all the circumstances to extend time? Direct race discrimination (Equality Act 2010 section 13)/ Harassment related to race (Equality Act 2010 section 26}

3.1 Did the respondent do the following things:3.1.1 On 4 February 2022 or 11 February 2022 did Ms Newton interrupt and stop the claimant during his lesson to summon him to a disciplinary meeting without prior warning?

3.1.2 Hold a disciplinary meeting on 4 February 2022 or 11 February 2022 without giving the claimant advance notice of the meeting, preventing him from having the opportunity to prepare, or informing of his right to be accompanied to the disciplinary meeting?

3.1.3 Fail to give the claimant notes of the meeting that took place on 4 February 2022 or 11 February 2022?

3.1.4 Encourage a parent to raise a written complaint in respect of the claimant?

3.1.5 Withhold a copy of the written complaint raised by a parent from the claimant?

3.1.6 Fail to carry out a proper investigation into complaints made against him?

3.1.7 Issue the claimant with a formal warning in relation to a complaint made by a parent without establishing the truth of the allegation?

3.1.8 Give unjustified consideration to complaints raised about the claimants work by two teachers who sent emails on 10 March 2022?

3.1.9 Set more demanding expectations and separate requirements of the claimant which were not expected of other teachers, specifically Ms J Heat, such as in respect of lesson planning?

3.1.10 Following a meeting on 20 May 2022 in an email chain (which continued until 20 June 2022) specified measures that obstructed the claimant from performing his duties upon his return from sick leave?

3.1.11 Redefine the claimants new role as significantly different from that of other teachers, or otherwise restrict his role?

3.1.12 Fail to properly investigate his grievances?

3.1.13 Fail to adhere to its performance related polices in relation to the claimant?

3.1.14 Did Ms Rendell say in front of the claimant's class on 2 March 2022 `I am sorry that your teacher does not read his emails'?

3.1.15 Did Ms Rendell on or around 21 February 2022 comment while the claimant was engaged in a conversation with another member of staff about a new school road scheme `Can people not read road signs?'?

3.1.16 Did Ms Rendell comment on or around 30 November 2023 following a staff training session to colleagues in the claimants presence, and in reference to the claimant `You know I'm not like some people who like talking all the time' [outside scope of Tribunal claim]

3.1.17 Did Ms Rendell regularly since the previous claim to the Tribunal until 30 [amended to 6th] November 2023 would roll her eyes at the claimant, mutter comments and behave with hostility when her eyes met with the claimant?

3.1.18 Did Ms Heat shout at the claimant during an assembly on 13 July 2022?

3.1.19 Did Ms Heat accuse the claimant of labelling her as racist within the earshot of pupils during a lesson on 15 July 2022?

3.1.20 Fail to properly investigate the behaviour of Ms Rendell towards the claimant following an incident that took place on 2 March 2022?

3.1.21 Fail to adequately investigate the claimant's complaint against Ms Heat?

3.1.22 Fail to prevent harassment of the claimant by staff members and in particular Ms Marzena?

3.1.23 Deny the claimant the opportunity to undertake further studies as part of his Career Professional Development?

3.1.24 Did Ms Wong threaten the claimant in a letter of 21 November 2022 if he pursued an investigation into complaints against Ms Heat?

3.1.25 Did Ms Wong threaten the claimant in a letter dated 21 November 2022 if response to future complaints by parents?

3.1.26 Did the respondent fail to take appropriate action when a parent commented that the claimant was loud, aggressive, rolling his eyes and rude on 17 October 2022. Direct Race Discrimination

3.2 The claimant's race is Black African. In respect of 3.1.1 to 3.1.26 above

3.3 Was that less favourable treatment? The Tribunal will decide whether the claimant was treated worse than someone else was treated. There must be no material difference between their circumstances and the claimant's. If there was nobody in the same circumstances as the claimant, the Tribunal will decide whether they were treated worse than someone else would have been treated. The claimant says they were treated worse than Ms A Green, Ms J Heat and/or a hypothetical White or Asian teacher.

3.4 If so, was it because of race.

3.5 Did the respondents treatment amount to a detriment? Harassment re/afed to race In respect of 3.1.1 to 3.1.26 above

3.6 Was that unwanted conduct?

3.7 Did it relate to race?

3.8 Did the conduct have the purpose of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the claimant?

3.9 If not, did it have that effect? The Tribunal will take into account the claimant's perception, the other circumstances of the case and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. Victimisation (Equality Act 2010 section 27)

4.1 It is accepted by the respondent that claimant brought a claim against the respondent in the Employment Tribunal and that this is a protected act.

4.2 Did the claimant do further protected acts as follows: raising complaints about his own treatment and that of the treatment of pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds? [withdrawn by claimant]

4.3 Did the respondent do the following things:4.3.1 Isolate the claimant from other staff during work

4.3.2 Prevent him from performing his agreed role at work

4.3.3 Subject him to unwarranted disciplinary actions

4.3.4 Fail to adequately investigate his complaints

4.3.5 Prevent his professional progression

4.3.6 Prevent him from attending externally funded courses

4.3.7 Fail to progress his pay scale By doing so, did it subject the claimant to detriment? If so, was it because the claimant did a protected act? 4.6 Was it because the respondent believed the claimant had done, or might do, a protected act? Remedy for discrimination or victimisation

5.1 Should the Tribunal make a recommendation that the respondent take steps to reduce any adverse effect on the claimant? What should it recommend?

5.2 What financial losses has the discrimination caused the claimant?

5.3 Has the claimant taken reasonable steps to replace lost earnings, for example by looking for another job?

5.4 If not, for what period of loss should the claimant be compensated?

5.5 What injury to feelings has the discrimination caused the claimant and how much compensation should be awarded for that?

5.6 Has the discrimination caused the claimant personal injury and how much compensation should be awarded for that?

5.7 Is there a chance that the claimant's employment would have ended in any event? Should their compensation be reduced as a result?

5.8 Did the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures apply?

5.9 Did the respondent or the claimant unreasonably fail to comply with it?

5.10 If so is it just and equitable to increase or decrease any award payable to the claimant?

5.11 By what proportion, up to 25%?

5.12 Should interest be awarded? How much? Approved by: Case number : 2302763/2022 2303105/2022 & 2300462/2023 Employment Tribunals Between Mr M Ankrah Claimant And The Governing Body of The King Alfred Federation Respondent Held at London South by video On 29 January 2026 Before : Employment Judge Andrews Appearances: For Claimant: In person For Respondent: Ms H Bell, Counsel Reserved Judgment on Remedy Hearing The judgment of the Tribunal is that the respondent is ordered to pay forthwith compensation to the claimant calculated as follows: Injury to feelings £ 10,000 Interest at 8% £ 2,660.85 Total payable £ 12,660.85

Background

[1]At a liability hearing held in November 2024 before a Tribunal comprising Judge Rea and Non Legal Members Dengate and Singh, the claimant was successful in relation to one allegation of harassment related to race. All other complaints brought by the claimant were unsuccessful. This outcome was recorded in a reserved liability judgment with reasons sent to the parties on 1 April 2025.

[2]Unfortunately since the liability hearing Judge Rea has been unable to deal with the outstanding remedy hearing. After consultation with the parties and considering the respondent’s application for a postponement, it was directed by the Regional Employment Judge that another Judge, sitting with the same members, would deal with the remedy hearing in her absence and it would proceed as listed.

[3]Regrettably it then transpired that one of the members was unavailable to sit on the listed date. Again after consultation with the parties and in accordance with the Presidential Guidance on Panel Composition, the Regional Employment Judge directed that the remedy hearing should proceed as listed but with a Judge sitting alone.

[4]These are unusual circumstances and I am grateful for the assistance given to me by both parties. The successful claim

[5]The successful claim was described in the (amended) list of issues at para 3.1.17 as: ‘Did Ms Rendell regularly since the previous claim to the Tribunal until 6th November 2023 would roll her eyes at the claimant, mutter comments and behave with hostility when her eyes met with the claimant?’

[6]In the heading of the liability judgment that claim was set out and described as well founded and successful. In the reasons section of the judgment the relevant paragraphs under the headings ‘Findings of Fact’ and ‘Decision’ were as follows: 40. Did Ms Rendell regularly since the previous claim to the Tribunal until 6 November 2023 roll her eyes at the claimant, mutter comments and behave with hostility when her eyes met with the claimant? In the course of the respondent’s investigation, several witnesses confirmed that they sometimes observed Ms Rendell rolling her eyes when the claimant was speaking during team meetings and that on some occasions she interrupted and spoke over him. Ms Rendell admitted that she may have sometimes interrupted the claimant because he would talk a lot and she wanted to move the meeting along. The Tribunal finds that Ms Rendell did on occasion at team meetings roll her eyes at the claimant, mutter comments and behave with hostility towards him although some of this behaviour may have been unconscious. … Time Limit 50. The Tribunal determines that the allegation of harassment related to race under 3.1.17 was made within the statutory time limit as it was repeated conduct throughout the period until the claimant brought his Tribunal claims and potentially continued afterwards. The Tribunal determines this is conduct continuing over a period in accordance with section 123(3) of the EA. …66. Allegation 3.1.17. The Tribunal has found Ms Rendell did behave in this manner towards the claimant on some occasions at team meetings during this time period. The history of Ms Rendell being found to have made a racist comment about the claimant is enough to establish facts from which the Tribunal could conclude that discrimination has occurred. The burden of proof therefore shifted to the respondent to show the treatment was in no way related to race. The Tribunal carefully considered whether Ms Rendell’s behaviour stemmed from her general impatience with or intolerance of others and somewhat direct communication style that can come across as hostile. However, there was no specific evidence of the claimant [sic – Ms Rendell] behaving this way towards others in team meetings. The Tribunal was persuaded that the claimant [sic – Ms Rendell] did not like the claimant and this was likely to be for a variety of reasons, not least the fact that he brought a successful claim that she had made a racist comment about him previously.

67. The respondent failed to satisfy the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that race did not have a significant influence on Ms Rendell’s treatment of the claimant, even if some of this was unconscious. The Tribunal concludes that this was unwanted conduct. The Tribunal further accepts the claimant’s evidence that overall this treatment had the prescribed effect. Had the allegation been limited to Ms Rendell rolling her eyes, the Tribunal would not have been persuaded that this in isolation had the prescribed effect or if it had that this was reasonable. This is because of the claimant’s own evidence that he considered this to be acceptable behaviour, in response to a complaint about the claimant rolling his eyes during a meeting when a parent of a pupil was speaking. Overall, the Tribunal is satisfied it was reasonable for the treatment to have the prescribed effect on the claimant. The Tribunal determines that this was harassment related to race.

[7]I also note the following specific assessments of both the claimant and Ms Rendell: 19. The Tribunal considered that the claimant believed what he was saying but he had misunderstood a lot of things, such as the distinction between formal and informal disciplinary process. Although the claimant genuinely felt hard done by, it was difficult to see why the claimant believed most of the things he complained about were anything to do with his race. His scattergun approach to the proceedings did make his evidence less credible and compelling at times. … 23. The Tribunal considered Ms Rendell to be an honest witness. At times she came across as somewhat confrontational which is consistent with the evidence and the Tribunal could see why she and the claimant would be likely to clash.

[8]At the outset of this hearing I sought to clarify with the parties their understanding of the findings at liability stage as to the frequency and regularity of the behaviour found to be unlawful harassment. The claimant’s position is that the findings were of repeated behaviour at the weekly team meetings throughout the whole period in question (he referred in particular to paragraph 50 which was regarding time limits). He said it had a ‘regularity beyond counting’ and ‘Ms Rendell could not help herself’. The respondent says that this was not put to Ms Rendell at the liability hearing. They rely upon the use of the words ‘on occasion’ in the liability judgment saying that this indicates that the behaviour was not repeated throughout but was sporadic. I was told that the original documents shed no light on this matter and that the witness evidence was very general.

[9]I have proceeded on the basis that the use of the words ‘on occasion’ was deliberate in the liability judgment and do not support the claimant’s interpretation. I find that the words used in paragraph 50 do not help me in this exercise as they were relevant to a particular finding about time limits. However there is nothing in the judgment to limit the behaviour to only particular parts of the relevant time period. I proceed on the basis therefore that the unlawful harassment certainly happened more than once, but not weekly or frequently, throughout the period June 2019 to 6 November 2023. Evidence for the remedy hearing

[10]In advance of the remedy hearing the claimant submitted a schedule of loss to which the respondent replied with a counter schedule of loss. The claimant filed a supplementary schedule of loss in response.

[11]A bundle of documents was also submitted that included a number of documents from the original liability hearing bundle. It also became necessary during the remedy hearing to refer to additional documents in the liability hearing bundle.

[12]I heard oral evidence from the claimant and, for the respondent, from Ms K Wong, Executive Headteacher. Submissions

[13]At the hearing both parties made oral submissions.

[14]In summary the claimant’s position was that he is entitled to compensation for injury to feelings (upper part of the middle band), aggravated damages (£10,000), personal injury (£6,000), breach of the ACAS Code of Practice (15% uplift) and interest.

[15]In reply the respondent accepted that compensation for injury to feelings is due but should be assessed in the middle of the lower Vento band. They say that no aggravated damages, personal injury award or ACAS uplift are appropriate. They accept that interest is payable but suggest a different calculation method to that relied upon by the claimant.

[16]As the claimant is relying upon matters that pre-date the liability hearing that were not dealt with in the liability judgment and also matters that post-date it, it has been necessary for me to make some fresh findings of fact. For necessary context I also repeat certain matters from the previous judgment. In doing so I am adopting and building upon the previous judgment and it is not my intention to contradict anything found therein. At times in his evidence and submissions, the claimant sought to re-open matters of fact that had been decided by the liability judgment. He also referred to his appeal against it. I explained to the claimant that I must proceed on the basis of the judgment as is. If his appeal is successful then any implications for this remedy judgment can be later considered. Finding of Fact

[17]Having assessed the evidence, both oral and written, and the submissions made by the parties I find on the balance of probabilities the following to be the relevant facts.

[18]In a previous claim brought in 2018 the respondent was found to have unlawfully racially harassed the claimant and he was awarded compensation of £3,500. This was in respect of a single comment made by Ms Rendell. Ms Rendell was issued with a disciplinary warning by the respondent in respect of that comment.

[19]Further, as the 2022 liability judgment says: ‘35. The respondent took some steps to reduce the amount of interactions between the claimant and Ms Rendell but they were still required to see each other at team meetings and generally around the school. The claimant did not raise any further concerns about Ms Rendell’s behaviour until March 2022 which is a substantial time gap. Although, the Covid pandemic meant there were some periods when teachers were not physically in school there were still significant periods when the claimant and Ms Rendell worked together without any issues being raised. 36. The claimant did not seek to complain about Ms Rendell’s behaviour until after other issues arose with the respondent. This does not mean that it was not happening but that the claimant did not perceive it to be serious enough to raise a grievance during that time period.’

[20]The claimant was unaware at the time that a warning had been issued to Ms Rendell and was not involved in that process. This was, quite properly, not least due to matters of confidentiality.

[21]Following the 2018 finding the claimant continued to attend team meetings and to engage as required with Ms Rendell and management. He played an active part in discussions and was professionally confident. He can have strong views and has not been reluctant to share them throughout the relevant time period. He attributes this to his own personal resilience, living by his principles and discharging his duty to his colleagues, students and own family.

[22]The ‘other issues’ mentioned in paragraph 36 quoted above I take to be a reference to an informal warning issued to the claimant in February 2022. In an exchange with Ms Newton, then Head of School, he challenged the warning but she confirmed that it would stand. In the meantime a Teaching Assistant had raised a concern about the way the claimant had been spoken to at a book fair by Ms Rendell (this allegation formed one of the claims dismissed in the liability judgment). The claimant referred to this and an alleged hostile working environment caused by Ms Rendell in his email to Ms Newton on 3 March 2022. He also further challenged the basis of his informal warning and said his health was suffering in various ways.

[23]On 4 March 2022 the claimant commenced a period of sickness absence which lasted until 15 May 2022. He submitted fit notes where the reasons for absence were stated to be work related stress.

[24]Ms Newton wrote to the claimant on 8 March 2022 saying that she and an HR adviser would meet with him on his return to work to discuss the matters (other than his challenge to his warning) he had raised in his email of 3 March 2022. In fact that meeting took place remotely on 30 March 2022, before his return. At that meeting the claimant was asked to provide a list of his concerns regarding Ms Rendell which he agreed to do. On 26 April 2022 Ms Newton reminded the claimant to send that list. He replied on 28 April 2022 saying, in summary, that he would not provide a list as the matters were already set out in his email of 3 March and by his colleague’s complaint about the book fair.

[25]Ms Newton then met the claimant, together with HR, on 5 May 2022. They discussed the claimant’s complaints and he provided the names of 11 relevant witnesses.

[26]Ms Newton interviewed those 11 witnesses between 13 May and 13 June 2022. She wrote to the claimant on 18 July 2022 explaining that the HR adviser had been ill which had delayed completion of the process but: ‘I want you to know that my investigation was very thorough and is now complete. I took your concerns very seriously. I know you will understand that these matters are always confidential and have to remain confidential and I cannot therefore give you the detail of the action I have taken. However, please rest assured that appropriate action has been taken in relation to your complaint.’

[27]By way of background I note that the claimant had previously made two complaints about Ms Newton herself. One was in 2017 and one in 2018. Both were not upheld. In his correspondence and meetings with Ms Newton in the March-July 2022 investigation, he did not object to her involvement or suggest that she was in any way biased against him because of those earlier complaints.

[28]On 28 March 2025 the claimant reported to Ms Dummer, Federation Headteacher, that Ms Rendell had committed a ‘simple assault’ against him by looking him up and down and rolling her eyes with a look of disgust and negativity towards him. He said that if such conduct continued he would file a police report. The claimant was then absent 1-3 April 2025 and Ms Dummer replied on 27 April 2025 (the school having been closed for Easter between 7 and 22 April 2025) inviting him to discuss his email the following day. The claimant amended his complaint on 28 April 2025 including a reference to the liability judgment that he had by then received. Ms Dummer met him on 30 April 2025 and indicated that he would be interviewed as part of a fact-finding investigation.

[29]The claimant was absent for the second half of June due to the birth of his child and he chased Ms Dummer for an update on 14 July 2025. She replied on the same day: ‘Since [30 April], the matter has progressed and the matter is currently undergoing a formal investigation in line with our HR procedures. The disciplinary policy has been followed, and to prevent any further issues during this process and to ensure your wellbeing whilst the matter is being investigated and thereafter the individual concerned has been allocated an alternative placement from September 2025. I want to assure you that this matter is being taken seriously. While I regret the delay in providing a written update, please be assured that appropriate steps have been taken and continue to be taken. Once the investigation is concluded, I will write to you with a formal outcome in accordance with the agreed disciplinary policy. As part of my feedback, I hope to include how we as an organisation can work with you and learn from your concerns to improve our practice/offer for all stakeholders. I anticipate this will be possible before the end of next week. Thank you for your patience and for raising your concerns. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any further questions in the meantime.’

[30]Although apparently not later confirmed to the claimant, the outcome of that investigation was that there was no case to answer by Ms Rendell and accordingly no action was taken although her transfer was maintained.

[31]In the meantime and in response to receipt of the liability judgment Ms Wong conducted a number of leadership briefings and took advice on next steps. She met with Ms Rendell on 28 April 2025. She reiterated the respondent’s expectations under the Staff Code of Conduct and reminded her of meeting etiquette, what amounts to respectful communication and of the prohibition of the type of behaviours found to be unlawful by the Tribunal. No disciplinary action was taken against Ms Rendell specifically in response to the liability judgment findings. The respondent took the view that too much time had passed to do so but at the start of May 2025 Ms Wong decided to redeploy Ms Rendell to another school in the Federation and a different key stage with effect from September 2025 so as to minimise any contact between her and the claimant. Further, seating at inset days where they would both be present was organised so that they would not sit near each other.

[32]Ms Wong also conducted a review of the respondent’s policies to ensure best practice standards for preventing harassment and unlawful conduct in the workplace. She drafted and finalised an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy and Anti-Harassment & Workplace Dignity policy and updated the Staff Code of Conduct to refer to them. Further, she organised anti-harassment training for all employees to be completed by 21 November 2025.

[33]There was no direct contact however from the respondent to the claimant upon receipt of the liability judgment regarding its content. Ms Wong’s explanation for that was that they were waiting for the remedy hearing to take place and she felt he was well supported by Ms Dummer with whom he seemed to have a good relationship. The claimant’s health.

[35]As stated above the reason given for the claimant’s sickness absence in MarchMay 2022 was work related stress. This was further to a GP consultation on 17 March 2022 the notes of which say: ‘works as a teacher - feeling very stressed due to several issues which are happening at work - had a written warning which he disagrees with - also reporting some bullying and harassment behaviour from other members of staff’ No reference to the claimant’s Reynaud’s appears at that consultation and the claimant accepted in his evidence that he did not report to his GP that there had been any exacerbation of it.

[36]The claimant attended a telephone occupational health assessment on 21 April 2022. The subsequent report stated: ‘Current Issues As you know, Michael has been absent due to perceived work-related stress alongside symptoms of Raynaud’s. Michael tells me he has been having difficulties with his mental health at the thought of going to work. Michael states that he has had difficulties with sleeplessness and his perceived stress will then trigger his symptoms of Raynaud’s. He tells me he has tried self-management techniques and has been speaking to his GP for support. Michael tells me he is keen to return once there is a resolution to the ongoing triggers for his perceived stress, which he hopes will be discussed in upcoming meetings with human resources and management. OH Opinion Raynaud`s causes the narrowing of the blood vessels to be more extreme, resulting in the skin changing colour. The fingers and toes may change from white to blue, and then to red. A Raynaud`s attack can be very painful, especially as the circulation returns. The main triggers of a Raynaud`s attack are exposure to the cold and emotional stress. The HSE report that six main areas can lead to perceived work-related stress if they are not addressed. These areas are demands, control, support, change, role, and relationships. I conducted an approved mental health assessment with Michael today and his scores reflected severe symptoms of anxiety. Michael will require further intervention to resume a level of wellbeing consistent with a return to work. While self-care strategies can help reduce some anxiety, they are on their own unlikely to resolve the situation. Instead, as the issues appear to be predominantly work-based, a resolution is more likely to be achieved via management rather than medical intervention. …’ and advised management to complete a Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP) with him.

[37]A WRAP form was set to the claimant on 26 April 2022 and at the meeting with Ms Newton on 5 May referred to above he was reminded to complete the ‘stress risk assessment’ form but he said it might not be necessary. It was agreed that they would discuss it again. In fact the claimant completed the WRAP on 24 February 2023.

[38]Much more recently and expressly for the purposes of this hearing, the claimant obtained a report dated 4 December 2025 from a physician’s associate at his GP’s practice which stated: ‘Michael was first seen in our practice with symptoms consistent with work-related stress and anxiety between March and May 2022. During these consultations, he described significant workplace difficulties, including harassment, and reported that these issues were directly contributing to his psychological symptoms He was signed off work on 4 March 2022, and his period of sickness absence lasted for approximately ten weeks, covering March to May 2022. He attended subsequent consultations in relation to ongoing workplace-related stress, and the issues continued to have an impact on his well-being.’ Again there is no reference to any exacerbation of the claimant’s Reynaud’s disease.

Relevant law

[39]Pursuant to section 124 of the Equality Act 2010, when a Tribunal finds a claim of discrimination to be well founded it may order the respondent to pay compensation to the claimant. Such compensation will be calculated by reference to any losses sustained by the claimant due to the discrimination and any injury to feelings and/or physical or psychiatric wellbeing.

[40]An award for injury to feelings is not automatic in every case. The onus remains on the claimant to establish the nature and extent of such injury and Tribunals have a broad discretion as to the amount of any such award. In Prison Service and ors v Johnson ([997), the EAT summarised the general principles that underlie awards for injury to feelings:a. awards for injury to feelings are designed to compensate the injured party fully but not to punish the guilty party;

b. an award should not be inflated by feelings of indignation at the guilty party’s conduct;

c. awards should not be so low as to diminish respect for the policy of the discrimination legislation. On the other hand, awards should not be so excessive that they might be regarded as untaxed riches;

d. awards should be broadly similar to the range of awards in personal injury cases; and

e. Tribunals should bear in mind the value in everyday life of the sum they are contemplating, and the need for public respect for the level of the awards made.

[41]In Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No.2) (2003), the Court of Appeal set down three bands of injury to feelings award, indicating the range that is appropriate depending on the seriousness of the discrimination in question. The Court also described some of the elements that can be compensated under the head of injury to feelings (and noted that medical evidence is not required to support such a claim). According to Lord Justice Mummery, injury to feelings encompasses ‘subjective feelings of upset, frustration, worry, anxiety, mental distress, fear, grief, anguish, humiliation, unhappiness, stress, depression’. They also emphasised that after making an award for injury to feelings the Tribunal must stand back and have regard to the overall compensation figure to ensure that it is proportionate and not subject to double counting.

[42]The three broad bands of compensation for injury to feelings (recognising that there is considerable flexibility within each band allowing Tribunals to fix what is fair, reasonable and just in the particular circumstances of the case) are:a. a top band to be applied only in the most serious cases, such as where there has been a lengthy campaign of discriminatory harassment. Only in very exceptional cases should an award of compensation for injury to feelings exceed the stated maximum figure;

b. a middle band for serious cases that do not merit an award in the highest band; and

c. a lower band appropriate for less serious cases, such as where the act of discrimination is an isolated or one-off occurrence. In general, awards of less than the minimum should be avoided, as they risk being regarded as so low as not to be a proper recognition of injury to feelings.

[43]The amounts in each band are updated each year by Guidance from the Presidents of the Employment Tribunals. The relevant figures for this claim which was presented on 12 August 2022 are:a. lower band: £990-£9,900;

b. middle band: £9,900-£29,600;

c. upper band: £29,600-£49,300.

[44]Compensation for injury to feelings may include an added element of aggravated damages in particularly serious cases of discrimination (Prison Service and ors v Johnson

[1997] ICR 275

EAT) but even so they remain compensatory and not punitive. In general terms they are available where the respondent has behaved ‘in a high-handed, malicious, insulting or oppressive manner in committing the act of discrimination’ (Alexander v Home Office

[1988] ICR 685

CA).

[45]In Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Shaw (

[2012] ICR 464

EAT) it was confirmed that aggravated damages are an aspect of injury to feelings and should be dealt with as a sub-heading under the same head of loss to avoid overcompensation and in accordance with the general principle that the total award for non-pecuniary loss must be fair and proportionate to the totality of the claimant’s suffering.

[46]Further, guidance was given in identifying three broad categories of appropriate case in which to make an award:a. where the manner in which the wrong was committed was particularly upsetting and that this is what the Court of Appeal in Alexander meant when referring to acts done in a ‘high-handed, malicious, insulting or oppressive manner’;

b. where there was a discriminatory motive - i.e. the conduct was evidently based on prejudice or animosity, or was spiteful, vindictive or intended to wound. Where such motive is evident, the discrimination will be likely to cause more distress than the same acts would cause if done inadvertently; for example, through ignorance or insensitivity. However, this will only be the case if the claimant was aware of the motive in question - an unknown motive could not cause aggravation of the injury to feelings; and

c. where subsequent conduct adds to the injury - for example, where the employer conducts Tribunal proceedings in an unnecessarily offensive manner, or ‘rubs salt in the wound’ by plainly showing that it does not take the claimant’s complaint of discrimination seriously.

[47]It is long established that Tribunals can award compensation for personal injury caused by unlawful discrimination, whether physical or psychiatric even if the injury was not reasonably foreseeable by the respondent but arose naturally and directly from the act of discrimination (Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd

[1999] ICR 1170

CA).

[48]The burden of proof is on the claimant to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the discriminatory acts caused the damage in order to establish liability and claim compensation. Whilst medical evidence is not an absolute requirement for making such an award, it will assist - especially in cases involving psychiatric injury, which can give rise to difficult questions of causation and quantification - in determining whether there was an injury and whether it was caused by unlawful conduct (Hampshire County Council v Wyatt EAT 0013/16).

[49]Interest may be awarded on any award in respect of injury to feelings pursuant to the Employment Tribunal’s (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996. If the Tribunal exercises its discretion and awards interest, the regulations set out that it is calculated from the date of the contravention to the date of calculation (unless there is a risk of serious injustice) and at what rate (currently 8%).

[50]Uplift to the award: section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 provides that if, in relevant proceedings, it appears to the Tribunal that the claim concerns a matter to which a relevant ACAS Code of Practice on resolving disputes applies and the employer has unreasonably failed to comply with that Code the Tribunal may, if it is just and equitable in all the circumstances to do so, increase any award it makes to the employee by no more than 25%. There is a corresponding provision to reduce the compensation payable if the employee has failed to comply with the Code.

[51]Paragraph 5 of the relevant Code states: ‘It is important to carry out necessary investigations of potential disciplinary matters without unreasonable delay to establish the facts of the case. In some cases this will require the holding of an investigatory meeting with the employee before proceeding to any disciplinary hearing. In others, the investigatory stage will be the collation of evidence by the employer for use at any disciplinary hearing.’

Conclusion

[52]My decision in respect of each head of compensation claimed is as follows: Injury to feelings

[54]The prolonged period of time over which the harassment took place (June 2019 to November 2023) indicates that this was not an isolated or one-off occurrence and that the middle Vento band would be the appropriate starting point. I take the respondent’s point that the general description of the lower band is for ‘less serious’ cases ‘such as’ an isolated etc event. However given that the relevant period is one of years and, importantly, that the same person had previously been found to have racially harassed the claimant, my view is that it falls outside the lower band.

[55]Given the sporadic nature of the behaviour however and that the claimant did not complain about it until March 2022, I assess the relevant level to be at the lower end of the middle band. Having heard the claimant’s account of the impact of the behaviour on him but also taking into account his obvious resilience, I award the sum of £10,000. Aggravated damages

[57]On the facts, the only possible ground for awarding aggravated damages that has merit is certain aspects of the respondent’s conduct subsequent to the original events in question. I have found no evidence of any high-handed, malicious, insulting or oppressive behaviour or any discriminatory motive.

[58]In particular the claimant has complained about:a. An inadequate investigation by the respondent following his complaint dated 3 March 2022. He refers to delay, a lack of objectivity and the finding of no case to answer. On the facts there was no unreasonable delay nor any lack of objectivity by Ms Newton (and no complaint of such at the time). Whilst the claimant disagrees with the eventual outcome there was nothing so inherently flawed with it such as to aggravate his injury.

b. A failure to implement OH recommendations regarding provision of a WRAP. On the facts this criticism is simply not made out. The claimant was promptly provided with the WRAP form and encouraged to complete it. Any delay in completion was his.

c. An inadequate investigation by the respondent following his complaint dated 28 April 2025. It is unfortunate that Ms Dummer, having said she would interview the claimant regarding his complaint and write to him once the matter was concluded, did neither but there was nothing to suggest that there was anything deliberate or particularly aggravating about these omissions. Indeed the letter she wrote to him on 15 July 2025 was in very cordial and supportive terms.

d. A failure to discipline Ms Rendell further to the liability judgment. Taking into account the actions at an institutional level that were taken by the respondent post-judgment (review of policies and compulsory training) as well as at the personal level by moving Ms Rendell to a different site and key stage, the failure to also formally discipline her does not amount to conduct such as to warrant aggravated damages. Some employers may well have taken a different approach and relied upon the liability judgment itself as sufficient to justify disciplinary action but there was no evidence before me to suggest that the respondent’s decision otherwise was of the necessary character to justify a further award. Again, other employers may well have taken the view that it would be appropriate to informally address any issues arising from the liability judgment upon receipt with the claimant. Whether I agree with Ms Wong’s reasons for not doing so, there was no evidence to suggest that the decision to simply await the remedy hearing was in any way tainted by matters that would make an aggravated award appropriate. In any event, the claimant did not himself complain about this.

[59]For these reasons therefore no aggravated damages award is made. Interest on award of injury for feelings.

[61]I consider it appropriate to award interest on the injury to feelings award. The usual approach would be to do so from the date of the act of discrimination complained of to the date of calculation. Given the sporadic nature of the discrimination and the delays by the Tribunal in listing this hearing, however, I award it from 3 December 2022, the mid point of the period between 3 June 2019 and 3 February 2026, to 3 February 2026 i.e. 1,215 days at a daily rate of £2.19. This amounts to £2,660.85. Personal injury.

[63]The medical evidence before the Tribunal certainly records the claimant’s allegation that he was suffering from anxiety in March to May 2022. He clearly mentioned it to both his GP and OH. However this is not enough to establish first the existence and extent of that anxiety and second its cause. In particular, the claimant was not assessed by a psychiatric specialist and there was never any formal diagnosis of clinical anxiety. Further, given the terms of the claimant’s exchanges with Ms Newman in March 2022 regarding the informal warning issued to him and how he said that had impacted him, I am unable to find that the claimant has established the necessary causal link even if he was suffering from diagnosable anxiety to the offending behaviour.

[64]As for the alleged injury by exacerbation of his Reynaud’s disease, the claimant has failed to establish either the fact of exacerbation or, again, a causal link. There is no mention of it at all in any of the medical documents upon which he seeks to rely. Accordingly I make no award for personal injury. ACAS uplift

[67]Any breach of the ACAS Code is only relevant if it relates to events that were the subject of the successful claim and in that respect the claimant has referred to alleged delays and inadequacies in the investigation of his complaints in March 2022.

[68]The complaint was fist made on 3 March 2022 and the basis of the complaint was confirmed on 28 April 2022 with names of 11 witnesses given on 5 May 2022. Those witnesses were then interviewed and the claimant was informed that the investigation was complete on 18 July 2022. In all the circumstances this was not an unreasonable breach of the Code’s requirements and it is not appropriate to award an uplift. APPROVED BY EJ ANDREWS