Miss N Haitham v London Borough of Sutton and Others: 2303617/2022
JUDGMENT
In the unanimous decision of the panel, all claims fail and are dismissed in their entirety against all respondents.REASONS
[1]The respondent requested a 10 day hearing, which was considered at a case management hearing on 7 May 2024. The original trial was adjourned due to previous case management orders not having been complied with, and the judge at this preliminary hearing gave a 5 day listing to prevent further delays (longer hearings being listed further into the future).[2]In order to complete matters within the tight time frame provided, we decided to proceed with the final hearing on liability only and to defer any remedy hearing to a later date. We also set a strict time frame for cross examination and asked the representatives to focus on the list of issues. Case No: 2303617/2022 The Complaints and Issues[3]The claimant complains of: 3.1. Direct race discrimination 3.2. Direct disability discrimination 3.3. Discrimination arising from disability (s 15 Equality Act) 3.4. Failure to provide reasonable adjustments 3.5. Harassment related to race 3.6. Victimisation[4]The issues for the tribunal are set out in the attached Annex. They were agreed at the case management hearing on 3 June 2024 and slightly amended at the final hearing.Evidence
[5]The tribunal had before it the following documentary evidence: A documents bundle (2,190 pages), a supplemental documents bundle (124 pages), respondents’ cast list/chronology (which was not agreed), 4 witness statements.[6]The tribunal did not allow an additional 11 page bundle from the claimant as it was disclosed very late and the respondent confirmed that most of the documents were already within the main bundle.[7]Nor did the tribunal accept a large number of audio recordings and transcripts from the claimant. The claimant had not indicated what parts of the recordings should be listened to and it was too late to deal with this at trial. Mr Patel, for the respondent, indicated that the transcripts were in the bundle in any event. The tribunal found that listening to the recordings would be a disproportionate use of time, particularly given the tight time frame we were working to, and because the transcripts were already in evidence.[8]I turn to oral evidence.[9]On behalf of the claimant the tribunal heard evidence on oath from: 9.1. Naila Haitham (the claimant).[10]On behalf of the respondent the tribunal heard evidence on oath from: 10.1. Beth Wilson (Acting Service Lead for the 0-19 Children’s Service from May to November 2021 and claimant’s line manager during this time). 10.2. Jenny Giles (Head of Children’s Services). 10.3. Jean Crate (claimant’s line manager from November 2021 to 2024).[11]Number references in brackets [01] are to the main documents bundle. References in brackets in the format [XX 01] are to paragraph numbers within witness statements.[12]Only findings of fact relevant to the issues, and those necessary for the tribunal to determine, have been referred to in this judgment. It has not been Case No: 2303617/2022 necessary, and neither would it be proportionate, to determine each and every fact in dispute. The tribunal has not referred to every document it read and/or was taken to in the findings below, but that does not mean it was not considered if the tribunal was taken to the document in evidence or as part of a reading list. The tribunal notified the parties at the outset of the hearing that they would only read documents that they were specifically referred to and would only read documents referred to in witness statements insofar as they were identified as being relevant to an issue in the case.The Law
[13]The most relevant law is set out below.[14]Section 13 Equality Act 2010 (EqA) - Direct discrimination (1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others. There are two parts to consider, namely, whether the employer: - Treated the person less favourably than it treated others, and - Treated the person in that way because of a protected characteristic.[15]Section 23 EqA comparison by reference to circumstances - provides: (1) “On a comparison of cases for the purposes of section 13, 14 or 19, there must be no material difference between the circumstances relating to each case.”[16]Section 15 EqA – Discrimination arising from disability (1) A person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if – (a) A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B’s disability, and (b) A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.[17]Sections 20 and 21 EqA – Duty to make adjustments Where a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) of the respondent or a physical feature puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled, the respondent has a duty to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage. A failure to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled person amounts to discrimination against that person.[18]Section 26 EqA – Harassment(1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if – Case No: 2303617/2022 (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.(2) …(3) …(4) In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account- (a) the perception of B; (b) the other circumstances of the case; (c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.[19]Section 27 EqA – Victimisation(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. Other law[20]All other law/caselaw as raised by the parties was considered. Findings of Fact and ConclusionsIntroduction
[21]The claimant’s ethnicity is Black African Arab. The respondents concede that she was disabled at the material time due to a back problem.[22]Early conciliation was between 25.8.2022 and 12.9.2022 for the 1st respondent [106], and 12.8.2022 and 12.9.2022 for the 2nd and 3rd respondents [107-108]. The claim was presented on 11.10.2022. Any act or omission before 26.5.2022 (for the 1st respondent) and 13.5.2022 (for the 2nd and 3rd respondents) may be out of time.Background
[23]The claimant started employment with the London Borough of Sutton (LBS) on 9.3.2020. At all material times she was a Health Visitor Team Leader in the 0-19 Children’s Service. Beth Wilson was the Acting Service Lead for the 0-19 Children’s Service from May 2021 to November 2021 and became the Case No: 2303617/2022 claimant’s line manager during this time. Jenny Giles, Head of Children’s Services, was Beth Wilson’s line manager. Overall impressions of witnesses[24]The claimant gave evidence that she had a strained relationship with Ms Wilson and thought that Ms Wilson viewed her as a rival. Overall, the claimant seemed to have misunderstood the situation at work and her case is totally misconceived.[25]At times Mr Kelly, the claimant’s representative, was belligerent and insulting, particularly to the 2nd respondent, Ms Wilson. Despite this, the respondents’ witnesses all came across as professional, credible and reliable. The claims Direct race discrimination - allegations 2.2.1 On 17 June 2020, at 9.30am, Beth Wilson on being greeted by the Claimant, said “Shoo I am busy right now” gesticulating with her hands to go awayThe claims
[26]Ms Wilson cannot recollect this and said that she would not have acted in this way [BW 14]. The claimant’s own diary indicates that the claimant was in a PCN (Primary Care Network) meeting from 9am to 10am [393] and Ms Wilson’s diary shows that she was in several meetings at the time of the alleged incident [394]. Conclusion[27]We find that on balance, the allegation did not happen. In any event, there is no evidence of any link with race.[28]Allegation dismissed. 2.2.2 On 26 July 2021, at 09.50am, Beth Wilson shouted at the Claimant in a video call[29]Ms Wilson denies shouting at the claimant [BW 23] and she was not tested on it in cross examination. We have not been taken to any documentary evidence in the bundle relating to the allegation.Conclusion
[30]We find that, on balance, the allegation did not happen. In any event, there is no evidence of any link with race.[31]Allegation dismissed. 2.2.3 On 26 July Beth Wilson discriminated against you by making up her mind that you had done something wrong without being prepared to listen to you Case No: 2303617/2022[32]Two members of the IT department complained about the claimant’s conduct when speaking to them and Lisa King (Digital Customer Support Lead) put this in an email to the claimant’s former manager, Maria Mockett [530]. It was later forwarded to Ms Wilson [531].[33]Ms King viewed the incident as a serious matter [532] and Ms Wilson knew that complaints from another department were not made lightly [BW 24]. Ms Wilson replied to Ms King on 26 July apologising and saying she would take it up with Naila [533]. Ms Wilson emailed the claimant to arrange to speak with her [543]. They talked for about an hour [BW para 29].[34]In an email to Matt Dodds on 26 July (Digital and IT Business Partner) [537], Ms Wilson explained that the meeting with the claimant had not gone well. She asked Mr Dodds for more details as to what exactly the claimant said as Mr Wilson wanted to make her understand that her manner was very abrasive and not assertive but rude. Ms Wilson had previously spoken to the claimant about her communications with others [BW para 27] [537].[35]An email from Vivien Day on 27 July [536] talks of the claimant’s manner towards their team – “a raised voice, over talking/not listening when we were trying to explain the process etc and assist. Went off on a rant, snappy, demanding, rude etc”[36]Ms Wilson tried to arrange another meeting with the claimant. In an email to her on 4 August [574], Ms Wilson explained that she did not intend to upset the claimant but had to follow process. She wanted to settle the complaint harmoniously with IT and ensure it did not progress to a formal situation. She offered to meet the claimant for a coffee. The claimant did not take up the offer [573].[37]Eventually, Ms Wilson discussed the IT complaint, amongst other things, with the claimant at a supervision meeting on 20 August and they agreed a response to the IT department indicating it was not the claimant’s intent to be offensive, and apologising [655-656]. Ms Wilson wrote to Ms King in the terms agreed with the claimant and this brought matters to a conclusion [614-615]. Conclusion[38]There is no evidence of race discrimination whatsoever. Ms Wilson was simply responding to a complaint against the claimant and trying to deescalate the situation, which was to the claimant’s advantage.[39]Allegation dismissed. 2.2.4 On 4 August 2021, Beth Wilson excluded the Claimant from a mediation meeting between Theresa Crawley and Adela La Marche[40]The respondents accept that this happened.[41]Theresa Crawley, a Health Visitor in the claimant’s team, had come to Ms Wilson upset because the claimant had told her that Adela Lamarche, another Team Leader, was “after her” for not attending training and she should “watch herself” [BW 43]. Case No: 2303617/2022[42]Ms Wilson was Ms Lamarche’s line manager and she called a meeting with Ms Lamarche and Ms Crawley. Ms Lamarche was horrified that the claimant had misrepresented her and Ms Crawley did not want the claimant in the room [1725]. The claimant knocked on the door and Ms Wilson did not invite her in but instead told her she would speak to her later [BW 45].[43]Ms Crawley later sent an email to HR recounting the situation and her distress and saying her trust in the claimant had gone [660]. Ms Lamarche complained to HR on 5 August that the claimant tarnished her professional reputation by misrepresenting events and causing distress to herself and Ms Crawley [597]. Conclusion[44]Ms Wilson was justified in excluding the claimant from the meeting, given the circumstances. This had nothing to do with race.[45]Allegation dismissed. 2.2.5 On 4 August 2021, Beth Wilson overturned the Claimant’s advice to Farah Elley that she needed to take annual leave before her retirement, despite the Claimant having verified the position with HR before advising Ms Elley[46]The claimant wrote to HR on 3 August 2021 saying that Farah Elley, who was about to retire, wanted to take her annual leave prior to retirement but “would like to be paid for those hours remaining.” [558]. HR had previously emailed the claimant on 22 July 2021 saying that all outstanding annual leave had to be taken before leaving the organisation except in very exceptional circumstances [529]. HR repeated this advice on 4 August [558].[47]On 4 August Ms Elley approached Ms Wilson in an upset state saying the claimant had told her she could not take her outstanding leave at the end of her notice period. She was not asking to be paid in lieu [BW 52]. Ms Wilson emailed HR that day saying she thought there had been some confusion and Farah Elley was asking if she could take her remaining leave at the end of her contract [559]. This was agreed [577]. Conclusion[48]The email the claimant wrote to HR was confusing and did not reflect Ms Farah’s wishes. Ms Wilson was simply clarifying the situation to HR, which was reasonable in the circumstances. This had nothing to do with race.[49]Allegation dismissed. 2.2.6 On 28 and 29 October 2021, Jenny Giles reported that she was concerned about the Claimant’s whereabouts since she reported she could not see anything in her diary, and informed the Claimant that she needed to be present in the office and not work from home[50]On 28 October 2021 three members of staff informed Ms Giles that they had not been able to get hold of the claimant. There were no appointments in the claimant’s google diary and Ms Giles was unsure what she was doing or where she was [JG 17]. Case No: 2303617/2022[51]That same day Ms Giles sent an email to the claimant saying there was little in her diary and she was unsure where she was working and when. She asked the claimant to put her working hours in the diary and explained that no one could get hold of her the previous day. She said it was important that the claimant was at Tweeddale (the centre the Health Visitors worked from) as much as possible and that if she had to work from home that staff were aware and could contact her [769].[52]There was then an email exchange with the claimant [769-765]. On 29 October Ms Giles queried with the claimant whether Occupational Health (OH) had said she could come in 2 days a week. Other staff were in 3 or 4 days a week and she said it would be better if the claimant were physically in more often going forward. Ms Giles said if it needed to be checked out with OH, she could refer her back to OH for advice [765]. Conclusion[53]It was perfectly reasonable for Ms Giles to query the claimant’s whereabouts under these circumstances. Ms Giles did not inform the claimant that she had to be in the office and not work from home. The claimant has misinterpreted the email. In any event, this had nothing to do with race.[54]Allegation dismissed. 2.2.7 On 28 October 2021, when the Claimant screenshot her diary to Jenny Giles, Ms Giles claimed that she completed the diary at that moment and cheated[55]On the 28 October Ms Giles emailed the claimant and said there was nothing in her google diary [768]. The claimant replied sending a screen shot of the diary [767]. Ms Giles responded thanking her for making sure it was completed as it wasn’t showing when she looked that morning [767]. Conclusion[56]The allegation did not happen as stated by the claimant. In any event, there is no evidence of any link with race.[57]Allegation dismissed. 2.2.8 On 3 November 2021, Jenny Giles sought to have Julie Miller as a minute taker at a meeting with the Claimant[58]This meeting was to discuss concerns the claimant had, and for Ms Giles to give her more detail about Ms Giles’ concerns as to her whereabouts [JG 27]. Ms Giles sought to have Julie Miller (Ms Giles’ PA) as a notetaker [781]. This was because, from emails prior to the meeting, there were indications that the meeting might be contentious [768-769] [JG 26, 30] and Ms Giles was concerned that the claimant had a tendency to contradict things afterwards [781] [JG 31]. Case No: 2303617/2022[59]When the claimant objected to Ms Miller’s attendance, Ms Giles agreed that Ms Miller leave the meeting [781]. The claimant then went on to covertly record the meeting. Conclusion[60]It was perfectly reasonable for Ms Giles to ask her PA to take notes of the meeting in these circumstances so as to have a record of what was said. This had nothing to do with race.[61]Allegation dismissed. 2.2.9 On 3 November 2021, Jenny Giles insisted that the Claimant attend the office everyday[62]We have not been shown anything in the transcript of the covert recording [781-849] or anything else suggesting that Ms Giles insisted the claimant come into the office every day. Ms Giles expressed the view that coming into the office 2 days per week did not meet the needs of the clinical service and she told the claimant she would need to refer her back to OH for further advice to ascertain whether the situation was sustainable for the role [792- 793; 796; 810; 822-823]. This is consistent with Ms Giles’ 5 November summary of the meeting [861-862]. Conclusion[63]The allegation did not happen.[64]Allegation dismissed. 2.2.10 On 3 November 2021, Jenny Giles insisted that the Claimant had to continue to be managed by Beth Wilson[65]Ms Giles did say that the claimant would continue to be managed by Ms Wilson for the time being pending Jean Crate taking over [38, 58]. However, she also invited the claimant to put her concerns about Ms Wilson in writing and then she would consider a way forward [JG 38]. Ms Giles’ summary note of the meeting records this [861-862] as does the covert recording transcript [802, 805, 834].[66]The claimant did not put her concerns in writing [JG 60] and Ms Giles did not think the claimant had given sufficient reasons in the meeting to change her line manager [59]. Conclusion[67]Under these circumstances it was a reasonable management decision to leave the claimant under Ms Wilson’s management pending Jean Crate taking over. There is no evidence that it was linked to race.[68]Allegation dismissed. Overall conclusion Case No: 2303617/2022[69]None of the allegations, either singularly or cumulatively, amount to direct race discrimination. The claimant was not treated less favourably than Adele Lamarche or a hypothetical comparator in similar circumstances to the claimant but of different race. This complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Direct disability discrimination - allegations 3.2.1 From 20 December 2021, the Claimant was not permitted to retain the role of health visitor team leader[70]The respondents admit that the claimant was not allowed to work as a Health Visitor Team Leader from 20 December 2021 [874, 886].[71]The OH report of 9 December 2021 said the claimant could only work from home [866]. On 20 December 2021 the claimant sent Ms Giles a FIT note from her GP saying that she was only fit to work from home for the first 3 months of her return to work [882, 887]. Ms Giles emailed back indicating that the claimant would not be able to manage and clinically support a Health Visiting Team remotely and so she would discuss alternative work [886].[72]The reason the claimant could not do the role was because it involved some clinical work, providing cover and leading her team, which could not be done fully remotely. Ms Giles’ view was that at least 3 days a week were needed working in the office, in clinic or visiting patients at their homes [75].[73]The claimant’s case was that only about 5% of her time was required doing these activities and she pointed to an old job description from the Royal Marden Hospital from 2016 (before the service was transferred to the first respondent) [369]. It says that “At the lower levels, operational managers may oversee a department or team and at the lowest levels…, direct contact with service users will be a common feature of roles in this job family.” The claimant seemed to be suggesting that “lower levels” and “lowest levels” somehow equated to 5%. However, she has misinterpreted the document and taken no account of the comma. The document does not say what she suggests it does.[74]Ms Giles explained that the job description used to say 40% of the role was clinical, but this had changed to 50% in line with other Team Leader roles across Sutton Health and Care [JG 87]. We accept Ms Giles’ evidence. Conclusion[75]The reason the claimant was not permitted to do this role was because the role could not be done fully remotely and the claimant was only working from home. It was not because she was disabled. Anyone else who worked fully from home would have been treated in the same way regardless of disability. The claimant was not treated less favourably. There was no discrimination.[76]Allegation dismissed. 3.2.2 On 3 November 2021, Jenny Giles insisted that the Claimant attend the office everyday[77]This did not happen as discussed above under 2.2.9. Case No: 2303617/2022 Conclusion[78]Allegation dismissed. Discrimination arising from disability (EqA s15) - allegations 4.1.1 Depriving her of the opportunity to work as a Health Visitor Team Leader during the following period: 20 December 2021-11 October 2022[79]The respondents accept that the claimant was not allowed to work as a Health Visitor Team Leader throughout this period.[80]The reason for the initial decision is dealt with above under 3.2.1. It was that the claimant needed to work from home all the time for 3 months and this was incompatible with the role. The claimant continued to work from home thereafter.[81]An OH report of 12 May 2022 notes that the claimant’s back condition had worsened since the last OH report in December 2021, and she remained working from home [1330-1331]. In a sickness review meeting on 19 July 2022 the claimant confirmed that she was not able to attend the office at all currently [1428] [JG 153]. Another OH report of 28 July 2022 stated that there had been little change in the claimant’s back pain and she was waiting to hear whether she required caudal injections or further back surgery. She continued to work her full contractual hours from home [1448-1449].[82]Another sickness review meeting took place on 15 September 2022. In an email to the claimant from her then line manager, Ms Crate, it was noted that it was not known how long the need to work from home would continue [1540- 1541]. At the time of issuing proceedings on 11 October 2022, the claimant was still fully working from home.[83]Throughout this period there was a continuing need for Health Visitor Team Leaders to cover clinical duties in the event other health visitors were unwell or there was an emergency, and for them to properly supervise, manage and support the Health Visitors in their team [JG 75-92]. Conclusion[84]The need to work from home arose from the claimant’s disability, and the working from home was what prevented her from being allowed to do the Health Visitor Team Leader role. As the claimant wanted to do the Team Leader role in preference to the other roles she was given, she was put to a disadvantage.[85]However, not allowing the claimant to undertake the Team Leader role was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of ensuring sufficient clinical cover and proper supervision and management of the team. There were no lesser measures that would have achieved those aims.[86]Allegation dismissed. 4.1.2 On 6 January 2022, in a return to work meeting, Ms Jenny Giles did not allow provision of a desktop at the workplace as recommended by Case No: 2303617/2022 Occupational Health, and reported it was not possible to provide auxiliary aids such as a desktop, second screen, or two laptops to avoid carrying a laptop with an impaired back.[87]Apart from the claimant’s word, there is no evidence that this happened, or that the claimant asked for these items at this time. Ms Giles has no recollection of it [JG 104, 105]. It is not in the email of 6 January from Ms Giles summarising the return to work meeting [895-896]. The claimant responded to that email on 10 January appearing to agree with what was discussed [897]. The email does not suggest any omissions from the summary note.[88]However, Jean Crate had her first management supervision meeting with the claimant on 16 January when the claimant told her she thought she would need a stand up desk and ergonomic chair in the office and two laptops. They agreed that the claimant would contact Access to Work for an assessment of what equipment would be needed [JC 9].[89]The OH report of 12 May 2021 records that the claimant had a good display screen equipment set up both at home and in the office [471].[90]Ms Giles was clear in cross examination that another screen could have been provided if the claimant had asked for one. When the claimant did raise the issue of a separate screen for home in her email of 22 August 2022 [1481] she was provided with one promptly [1498].[91]We find that Ms Giles did not refuse these items and did not say it was not possible to provide auxiliary aids. Conclusion[92]The allegation did not happen.[93]Allegation dismissed. 4.1.3 On 8 February 2022, when the Claimant asked if she should come into the office to be assessed on MASH reports, with regular breaks, Ms Wilson rejected this idea because she was too busy and did not want to risk another relapse[94]On 7 February Ms Wilson asked that the claimant take on MASH (Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub) work [983]. The claimant emailed Ms Wilson that day saying she didn’t think it would work virtually and suggested she could get a lift into the office [984].[95]Ms Wilson replied that she couldn’t come into the office when the advice was to the work from home [985]. The OH report of 9 December 2021 said she could only work from home [866] and the FIT note from her GP of 18 December 2021 stated she should work from home for the first 3 months of her return to work [882]. Conclusion Case No: 2303617/2022[96]Ms Wilson did not reject the idea of the claimant coming into the office because she was too busy. It was to safeguard the claimant’s health. This was not unfavourable treatment. Accordingly, there was no discrimination.[97]Allegation dismissed. 4.1.4 On around 8 February 2022, Ms Wilson sent an email with concerns about the Claimant working too slow and wanting to see the MASH document completed[98]Ms Wilson was supervising and assisting the claimant with her first MASH. At 14.42 on 8 February 2022 Ms Wilson sent an email to the claimant saying she was concerned that the claimant had been doing a green MASH since 9.30am until then. She told the claimant that she (Ms Wilson) had done it and asked the claimant to look at it [1030]. In an earlier email to the claimant at 13.22 Ms Wilson had written that she wondered what the hold-up was [1040].[99]The claimant emailed Ms Wilson saying she was learning as she went and was inevitably slow [1040-1041]. Ms Wilson replied saying she had assumed that the claimant was more ready but she would take it slower for her [1041]. Conclusion[100]The emails are simply querying the length of time the claimant was taking. They end with Ms Wilson saying she would take it slower for the claimant. There is no unfavourable treatment. Accordingly, there was no discrimination.[101]Allegation dismissed. Reasonable adjustments - allegations 5.2.1 Was there a PCP of requiring the Claimant to attend the office for the whole week on 3 November 2021[102]No. There was no such PCP. This did not happen. See reasoning at 2.2.9. 5.2.2 Was there a PCP of requiring staff working from home to use a laptop/ a single screen[103]No. When the claimant asked for a second screen for home she was provided with one [1481,1498]. Her evidence was that other safeguarding staff were provided with more than one screen. 5.2.3 Was there a PCP of requiring staff to carry out approximately 10 MASHs per day[104]In the covert recording of the meeting of 15 February 2022, both Ms Giles and Ms Wilson indicated that generally they would expect about 10 MASHs to be done in a day [1074]. On this basis we find that there was a general practice of requiring staff to complete about 10 MASHs per day.[105]However, this was not applied to the claimant. Emails of 8 February 2022 [989, 1030, 1041] indicate that she was only asked to complete one MASH with a view to doing another if she felt she could. The claimant said in the 22 Case No: 2303617/2022 February meeting that she had only done one MASH and then she was taken off it [1074]. Overall conclusion[106]5.2.1 and5.2.2 were not PCPs and the PCP at5.2.3 was not applied to the claimant. Therefore, her claim that the respondents failed to provide reasonable adjustments is dismissed. Harassment related to race – allegations 6.2.1 On 26 July 2021, Ms Beth Wilson shouted at the Claimant on a video call[107]This is dealt with at 2.2.2 above. Conclusion[108]It did not happen.[109]Allegation dismissed. 6.2.2 On 4 August 2021, Beth Wilson excluded the Claimant from a mediation meeting between Theresa Crawley and Adela La Marche[110]The reasons for this are set out in 2.2.4 above. Conclusion[111]Whilst it may have been unwanted conduct, it had nothing to do with race.[112]Allegation dismissed. 6.2.3 On 28 October 2021, Beth Wilson sent a scathing email to the Claimant about her inadequate management and communication skills following a complaint by Julie Miller about an email from the Claimant[113]The totality of the contents of this 28 October email from Ms Wilson [762] is: “Please could you arrange a meeting with me for next week as there are several things I need to discuss with you including the tone of this email to Julie. Regards.” Conclusion[114]This is not scathing and did not say the claimant’s management and communication skills were inadequate. It had nothing to do with race.[115]Allegation dismissed. 6.2.4 On 28 and 29 October 2021, Jenny Giles reported that she was concerned about the Claimant’s whereabouts since she reported she could not see anything in her diary, and informed the Claimant that she needed to be present in the office and not work from home Case No: 2303617/2022[116]This is dealt with at 2.2.6 above. Conclusion[117]Ms Giles did not inform the claimant that she needed to be present in the office and not work from home. None of Ms Giles actions had anything to do with race.[118]Allegation dismissed. 6.2.5 On 3 November 2021, Jenny Giles insisted that the Claimant attend the office everyday[119]This is dealt with at 2.2.9 above. Conclusion[120]It did not happen.[121]Allegation dismissed. 6.2.6 On 20 December 2021, the Claimant was removed from her Health Visitor Team Leader role[122]This is dealt with at 3.2.1 above. Conclusion[123]This had nothing to do with race.[124]Allegation dismissed. 6.2.7 On 6 January 2022, the Respondent declined to allow the Claimant to return to her role of Health Visitor Team Leader[125]This happened [895-896]. Facts relevant to this allegation are set out above at 3.2.1 and 4.1.1. Conclusion[126]This had nothing to do with race.[127]Allegation dismissed. 6.2.8 On 27 January 2022, Ms Jenny Giles insisted that the Claimant could not work in safeguarding unless she was vaccinated with the Covid-19 vaccine[128]This happened.[129]Ms Giles understood that, from 1 April 2022, new regulations made it unlawful for employers delivering Care Quality Commission regulated activities to deploy unvaccinated workers in face to face roles. The claimant was working in safeguarding and Ms Giles believed she needed to be vaccinated. Ms Giles Case No: 2303617/2022 met with the claimant on 27 January to discuss the position, as the claimant was not vaccinated and did not want to be vaccinated [JG 110-115]. Ms Giles followed this up with an email [969-971]. Conclusion[130]Ms Giles actions had nothing to do with race. She was just following process.[131]Allegation dismissed. 6.2.9 On 9 February 2022, on a video call, Ms Beth Wilson said in relation to the first completed MASH report, ‘yes you do have the skill set but there are a couple of things you could have added’, insinuating that the Claimant did not know safeguarding and/or is incompetent when she was a specialist HV in a previous role[132]Ms Wilson was supervising the claimant at the time on her first MASH and giving feedback. It appears that she made a comment to the effect that there were things the claimant could have added [1081]. Ms Wilson denies insinuating that the claimant did not know safeguarding or was incompetent [BW 89, 90], and we have not been taken to any evidence which supports that. Conclusion[133]This is a perfectly reasonable comment to make, given that Ms Wilson was advising the claimant as she learnt how to do MASHs. There were no insinuations about competence or not knowing safeguarding.[134]None of this had anything to do with race.[135]Allegation dismissed. 6.2.10 On 15 February 2022, in a virtual meeting, Ms Beth Wilson and Ms Jenny Giles insinuated that the Claimant was slow, did not work well and was incompetent in the safeguarding role[136]Ms Wilson gave the claimant some feedback from the team which was not safeguard specific [1070], because the purpose of the meeting was to give such feedback [1032].[137]The claimant admitted she was “very slow” [1063, 1066]. We have not been taken to any evidence that suggests Ms Wilson or Ms Giles insinuated that the claimant did not work well or was incompetent and we find they did not do so. Conclusion[138]None of this had anything to do with race.[139]Allegation dismissed. 6.2.11 On 2 March 2022, the Claimant requested time off in lieu but this was rejected by Ms Beth Wilson Case No: 2303617/2022[140]The claimant asked for time off in lieu and Ms Wilson asked for evidence to support the request, which the claimant did not provide [1175-1182]. Ms Wilson did not reject the request. Conclusion[141]Ms Wilson was simply doing her job as a manager. It had nothing to do with race.[142]Allegation dismissed. 6.2.12 On 19 April 2022, Ms Jenny Giles continued to contact the Claimant after the Claimant had raised a grievance against her and asked her not to, and after the Claimant had received management instructions from another manager[143]Ms Giles contacted the claimant on 19 April asking her to liaise with Ms Giles about work, as the claimant’s manager Jean Crate was on leave [1265]. The email was in response to an email the claimant had sent to Ms Crate and copied to Ms Giles [1264].[144]We have not been taken to any evidence demonstrating that the claimant asked Ms Giles not to contact her prior to this date, or that she had received management instructions from another manager. We find that this did not happen.[145]Ms Giles had not been provided with any information about the grievance at this time [1267]. Conclusion[146]As Ms Crate’s line manager and during Ms Crate’s absence from work, it was reasonable for Ms Giles to contact the claimant in order to oversee her work.[147]None of these facts relate to race.[148]Allegation dismissed. Overall conclusion[149]None of the allegations, either individually or cumulatively, amount to harassment. This complaint fails in its entirety. Victimisation – allegation 7.1.1 Raise a grievance on 7 March 2022[150]The respondents accept that this is a protected act. 7.2.1 On 19 April 2022, Ms Jenny Giles continued to contact the Claimant after the Claimant had raised a grievance against her and asked her not to, and after the Claimant had received management instructions from another manager Case No: 2303617/2022[151]The facts concerning this allegation are set out at 6.2.12. Conclusion[152]Ms Giles did not contact the claimant because she had made a grievance. Ms Giles did not have any information about the grievance and could not have known the claimant had done a protected act. Ms Giles contacted the claimant because she needed to oversee the claimant’s work in Ms Crate’s absence.[153]Allegation dismissed. Time limits[154]As all allegations have been dismissed, we have found it unnecessary to determine the time limit issues.