Ms S Saragoudas v Transport for London: 2304556/2023 and 2305058/2024
JUDGMENT
All claims are dismissed.REASONS
[1]The claimant complains of: 1.1. Direct sex discrimination; 1.2. Direct age discrimination; 1.3. Harassment; 1.4. Victimisation.[2]The issues for the tribunal are set out in the attached Annex. They were settled at a Case Management Hearing on 3 and 4 December 2024; clarification of comparators and minor amendments were made at the Full Merits Hearing in June 2025. Evidence 1 of 42[3]The tribunal had before it the following documentary evidence: 3.1. Main documents bundle (6,894 pages), additional documents bundle (219 pages); and 2 further documents (3 pages); making a total of 7,113 pages; list of acronyms, cast list and chronology. 3.2. Eight witness statements for the respondent: Karen Amazigo, David Brown, John Gooden, Mike Gray, James Kirkby, Djamila Guernou, Ros Peasgood, Adrian Tasker ; 3.3. Three witness statements for the claimant: Stavroula Saragoudas, Deborah South, Patricia Moody.[4]On behalf of the claimant I heard evidence on oath from: Stavroula Saragoudas (claimant) and Patricia Moody. Deborah South did not give evidence as I refused her request for anonymity.[5]On behalf of the respondent I heard evidence on oath from: Djamila Guernou, John Gooden, Mike Gray, James Kirkby, Adrian Tasker, Karen Amazigo, Ros Peasgood, and David Brown.[6]Number references in brackets are to the documents bundles; those with the pre-fix AB refer to the additional bundle).[7]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 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
[8]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.[9]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.” 2 of 42[10]Section 26 EqA – Harassment(1) A person (A) harasses another (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.(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.[11]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[12]All other law/caselaw as raised by the parties was considered. Observations on witnesses[13]In large part, the claimant’s evidence did not reflect the documentary evidence, and in cross examination she did not always answer the questions asked of her.[14]In contrast, the respondent’s witnesses largely gave evidence that was supported by documentation and responded in a straight forward manner to questions asked of them. Findings of fact and conclusions Background 3 of 42Background
[15]The claimant has been employed by Transport for London (TfL) since 3.5.2016. After a reorganisation in June 2017 she worked within the Network Assurance team, which was part of the wider Network and Hosting (N&H) team within Technology and Service Operations (TSO). In March 2024 she was temporarily transferred to the Cyber Security IT Advisory team.[16]John Gooden was the Service Owner for N&H. Below him were two Senior Service Performance Managers (SSPMs) and below them were Infrastructure Managers, below which were Senior Infrastructure Engineers, amongst others.[17]Djamila Guernou was Head of TSO within the Technology and Data Directorate and responsible for around 540 team members. Seven senior managers reported directly to her, including John Gooden.[18]Whilst in Network Assurance the claimant worked in a small team of four, of which she was the only woman. She was one of two Senior Infrastructure Engineers; the other two team members were Infrastructure Engineers.[19]Her male colleagues within this team were Nawar Hamid (Infrastructure Engineer - joined pre-2016), Tasawar Khan (Senior Infrastructure Engineer - joined pre-2016) and Niall Canavan, who was Non-Permanent Labour. On 12.4.2023 Adnan Zahid (Infrastructure Engineer) joined the team.[20]David Mitchell was initially the Network Assurance/Infrastructure Manager. David Brown took over on secondment from May 2020 until January 2021. The claimant reported directly to these managers.[21]In February 2021 when Mr Brown took up an SSPM role, Mike Gray temporarily covered the position of Network Assurance/Infrastructure Manager.[22]James Kirby became Network Assurance/Infrastructure Manager and the claimant’s line manager in November 2021.[23]From August 2023 Adrian Tasker (Infrastructure Manager in Infrastructure Security) took over the pastoral side of the claimant’s line management after she made a grievance against her line manager Mr Kirkby in June 2023.[24]Mr Tasker’s management of the claimant came to an end when she moved temporarily into the Cyber Security team in March 2024.[25]The claimant submitted her first ET1 on 23 August 2023 and her second ET1 on 16 June 2024. Direct sex discrimination Comparators2.1 The Claimant relies upon the actual comparators of Nawar Hamid and Tas Khan for claims 2.2.1-2.2.3 and 2.2.5 and actual comparators Adnan Zahid, Nawar Hamid and Tas Khan for claims 2.2.6 and 2.2.7. Alternatively, allegations under2.2 below rely on a hypothetical comparator. The correct 4 of 42 hypothetical comparator is: A network engineer at TFL, who is male, with the same or not materially different skillset and experience. Allegations 2.2.1 The Claimant was not informed that she was offered a secondment opportunity in Network Solutions Architecture (“NSA”) on or around 5 October 2020.[26]The respondent’s witnesses gave evidence that there is no such team as Network Solutions Architecture. The relevant team is the Network Architecture team.[27]In 2020 the claimant had expressed an interest in undertaking an Architect’s role and joining an Architect’s team. She sent an email to Mr Brown on 13.8.2020 to this effect (3768).[28]In September 2020 Mr Brown asked Kulvinder Matharu (Senior Project Manager in Data Networks) whether there were any development opportunities for the claimant that could help her aspirations to become a Network Architect. They discussed a 3 month secondment into Mr Matharu’s team (see reference to this in Matharu’s email to Rachel Bench of 24.9.2020 at 699 and 5454). Ms Bench said there would need to be capacity to cover the claimant’s current activities to support this, even if it were a less formal local secondment (see emails of 5.10.2020 from Bench to Matharu at 302 and 5453).[29]Both the Network Architecture and the Network Assurance teams were small. Mr Brown in evidence explained that it would have been difficult to accommodate someone with no experience in the Network Architecture team and it would have been challenging from a resourcing perspective to release the claimant from Network Assurance. In XX he said Network Assurance was a small team and there would not have been enough people left at that time to perform its functions if the claimant went on secondment.[30]For this reason the potential secondment was not progressed. Mr Brown informed the claimant of this by email on 26.10.2020 and said he would revisit it early in the New Year (3792).[31]There was no secondment opportunity in Network Architecture at this time. Mr Brown had simply made enquiries on the claimant’s behalf but it was decided that there was no capacity to support a secondment.[32]There was no sex discrimination. 2.2.2 The shadowing opportunity was extended for a male colleague by a period of two years which prevented the Claimant from accessing this work experience. 5 of 42[33]Mike Gray discussed development ambitions with each of his permanent team members. Nawar Hamid and Tas Khan expressed an interest in Architecture, whereas the claimant expressed an interest in Management.[34]Mr Hamid had consistently shown an interest in Architecture development. There was capacity for a local arrangement to be made in the summer of 2023. Therefore, Mike Gray and Kulvinder Matharu (Senior Project Manager – Data Networks) arranged an informal shadowing for Mr Hamid in Network Architecture starting on 21.6.2021 (6826 to 6827).[35]The shadowing was the equivalent of two days per week, spread throughout the week. Mr Hamid continued with his substantive Infrastructure Engineer role at this time, putting in additional hours to do his substantive work.[36]Mike Gray and James Kirkby in evidence explained that it was envisaged that Mr Hamid would see a project through from start to finish, which would typically take one financial year. However, the project lasted longer, and in order for Mr Hamid to complete his objectives, he was permitted to remain on the project until it ended on 28.2.2023. Therefore, the placement lasted one year and 9 months.[37]On 7.9.2021 the claimant emailed Mr Gray and asked whether it would be possible for her to try some experience in Kulvinder’s team after Nawar, as well as doing the TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework) certification (5463).[38]Mr Gray’s evidence was that the claimant asked him to end Mr Hamid’s shadowing early, so that she could take up the opportunity herself. She wrote “I would now like Nawar to be moved out of the Solutions Architects Team and allow another member of the team to move into that area for training” (371).[39]Mr Gray refused and told her that Mr Khan was next in line, if any similar opportunity became available. He said this was because Mr Khan had also consistently shown an interest in Architecture, and the claimant had managerial aspirations, which she had been supported in. Now the claimant was again trying to change her career path. I accept this evidence.[40]Mr Kirkby explained that this type of arrangement undertaken with Nawar was being done for the first time, and it created various issues. It was decided not to offer anyone else a shadowing opportunity similar to that of Mr Hamid’s due to the time it took and constraints on resources, amongst other things. Consequently, it was not repeated with anyone else thereafter. I accept this evidence.[41]The extension was to allow Mr Hamid to conclude the project he had been working on. No similar opportunities were offered to anyone after that. The extension had no effect on what was available for the claimant.[42]There was no sex discrimination. 6 of 42 2.2.3 The Claimant was blocked by managers David Brown, John Gooden, James Kirkby and Mike Gray from shadowing opportunities and secondment(s) such as Network Solutions Architecture (“NSA”) necessary to progress her career on or around 5 October 2020 until todays date.[43]See2.2.1 for facts concerning enquiries about a potential secondment in September and October 2020 and2.2.2 concerning the ceasing of opportunities after Mr Hamid.[44]On 6.10.2020 the claimant emailed David Brown asking to attend a TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework) course (3770). Mr Brown emailed Linda Gadalla (Infrastructure Manager) on 9.10.2020 to enquire how he might progress this (3769).[45]In early 2021 Mr Brown was promoted to SSPM (see email J Gooden 29.1.2021 at 3753-54). As a result, the Network Assurance Manager role became vacant.[46]In an email of 1.2.2021 to John Gooden, the claimant queried whether the role would be offered as a secondment opportunity (3753). Mr Gooden replied that the recruitment process would take about 3 months and everyone would have the opportunity to apply. In the meantime they would look at plugging the gap and that might mean some opportunities for current Seniors (3753).[47]On 9.2.2021 the claimant enquired of Mr Gooden whether she could be given the opportunity of taking up the role of acting Network Assurance Manager until a permanent appointment was made or secondment arrangement put in place. Mr Gooden explained that he had already made arrangements for Mike Gray to cover the position on a temporary basis, given his management experience.[48]Mr Gray took up the acting Network Assurance Manager role in early February 2021, whilst continuing to manage the Cloud team. He became the claimant’s line manager. He gave the claimant the technical lead role on Network Assurance work, as he was not required to do this himself as part of his temporary role. To give the claimant some management experience, Mr Gooden and Mr Gray allowed the claimant to attend regular management meetings with them.[49]In April 2021 Mr Gray spoke with each member of the Network Assurance team about their objectives and development priorities for 2021/2022 and set these out for each person in a Performance and Development Review form for the period 1.4.2021 to 31.3.2022.[50]Mr Gray’s evidence was that the claimant told him she was interested in pursuing a career in Management and wanted to do an MBA in furtherance of this pursuit. Mr Hamid and Mr Khan expressed an interest in pursuing technical career opportunities in Network Architecture. I accept this evidence.[51]On 18.5.2021 the claimant emailed Mr Gooden saying she was thinking of taking an on-line MBA to assist her in her quest for a managerial career and asked for one hour a day study time (3749). Mr Gooden replied saying he had no issue with 7 of 42 supporting this and offered to hold workshop sessions with her to shape her thinking (3749).[52]On 8.6.2021 the claimant emailed Mr Gooden saying she understood the final Network Manager interviews were unsuccessful (see 2.2.4 below). She asked whether there was an opportunity to move into the Network Management position for a short time whilst the right candidate was found. She said she understood her knowledge gap was too great but she was working hard to bridge that gap (3742).[53]Mr Gooden replied on 13.6.2021 saying he had had a long and hard think about this but in his honest opinion it would not work because the gap was too big. He said that Mike Gray was working on opening other opportunities that would net be such a big jump (3741-42).[54]In June 2021 Dipen Patel informed Mr Gooden that the claimant had applied for two Architecture roles (Bands 3 and 4). Mr Gooden was puzzled as it was at odds with her request to pursue a management career. He then learned that she had also applied for three Infrastructure Manager roles. He was concerned that the constant change in direction was difficult to manage and it could give the impression that she had not thought about her career direction.[55]Mr Gooden emailed the claimant on 14.6.2021 (347) noting that she had applied for five different roles/technologies spanning two grades and asked her to think about how that appeared to the hiring manager, who was looking for the right skillset and experience. He suggested that she decide which direction she wanted to go in and target that (3741).[56]The claimant replied on 15.6.21 saying she appreciated the feedback. She would like to progress either a Management or Architecture role. She was grateful for the opportunity in management and hopefully she would also experience working in Architecture. She was currently doing a course in Management and the next goal was to take a TOGAF course to assist her understanding of Architecture (346-347).[57]On 18.6.2021 the claimant emailed Mr Gooden again and told him she would like to take up his offer of a whiteboarding session. She suggested meeting on 6.8.2021 (345). Mr Gooden replied within the hour suggesting she put some slides together about various considerations for the meeting (345).[58]The whiteboarding session took place in August. However, rather than preparing to discuss her development, the claimant came with a presentation about issues she had with TfL (6410 - 6418). Mr Gooden felt with session was not productive.[59]In March 2022 the claimant applied for a secondment to an SSPM role in a team led by Steve Paye (Service Owner – Surface Transport and Service Strategy and Design). She was unsuccessful. Steve Payne fed back that, whilst she did well, she gave a presentation lasting 35 to 40 minutes on a topic outside the brief, rather than within the 10 minutes asked of her, and she fell behind the other candidates (3719).[60]In a one to one meeting with the claimant on 15.9.2022, Mr Kirkby agreed that the claimant could have one hour a day to study TOGAF. The claimant also asked that she be given 1 day a week with either the Application or Network Architect teams (see mails of 15.9.2022 and 21.9.2022 at 1759). Whilst Mr Kirkby considered the 8 of 42 request, he subsequently decided it was not possible at that time to release anyone else for shadowing due to the workload demands on the team, but he would reconsider it when Mr Hamid had completed his shadowing.[61]Mr Gooden emailed the claimant and said he understood that her focus had changed back to Network Architecture, which surprised him as they had only spoken a week ago. He told her that the changing of direction made it impossible for them to support her. She needed to decide on her development path and what she was going to work towards and then they could help bridge her skills and knowledge gap (260).[62]The claimant emailed Mr Gooden on 19.1.2023 setting out the Architecture roles she had unsuccessfully applied for and said that she needed experience. She informed him that she had passed her MBA and now she was pursing TOGAF and wanted work experience in any of the Architecture teams that would have her (258).[63]On 20.1.2023, Mr Gooden emailed the claimant and said the next steps were for her to demonstrate her progress and development in her end of year review. To assist, he set out a list of steps to take and the stages she would need to go through to achieve a “Move” readiness rating. He suggested she obtain evidence of her performance and feedback from her peers and colleagues (256-7).[64]On 31.1.2023 the claimant asked for an update on her development opportunity within the Network Architecture space that was currently being planned (253-4). Mr Gooden responded on 3.2.2023 (253), saying he had spoken to Ben Jones (Solution Architecture Manager) and Kulvinder Matharu (Senior Project Manager – Data Networks).[65]The document shows that Ben Jones indicated that the claimant lacked certain skills and suggested an external course as a preparatory step, and that there was no option to shadow as they were too resource constrained to support that. Mr Matharu had said that there were lessons to be learnt from Mr Hamid’s shadowing and he was currently working on closing off his development plan. Due to the workload in Network Assurance, it was not possible to have two team members shadowing. There were opportunities there but no timescales at present.[66]The claimant emailed Mr Gooden (copying in Ms Guernou) on 3.2.2023 (252-3) saying she had spoken with Aaron Fields (Consultant Infrastructure Architect) who had responded quite positively to an opportunity for her to shadow their team. Mr Gooden emailed Ms Guernou (see 3.2.5 below).[67]The claimant went on sick leave from 9.8.2023 and refused to return to work until a suitable return to work plan was put in place. She was found a temporary position in the Cyber Security Team in March 2024. Her substantive role remained as a Senior Engineer in Network Assurance.[68]None of these managers blocked the claimant and they all supported her in her career development. However, her frequent change of career path development made it difficult. There were no shadowing opportunities available to the claimant, 9 of 42 and the secondments she unsuccessfully applied for, had nothing to do with these managers.[69]There was no sex discrimination. 2.2.4 The Claimant was not promoted to the Network Manager role on or around 15 April 2021.[70]On 15.4.2021 Mr Gooden emailed the Technology and Data directorate telling them he was seeking to recruit a permanent Infrastructure Manager for Network Assurance and specifying the required knowledge and experience for the role. Previous experience was required of managing technical teams of up to approximately 12 members, including resource performance management and performance evaluation. People management and leadership skills were needed (3751-3752).[71]Mr Gooden and Mr Brown conducted the interviews. Steve Wyatt (TfL Recruiter) carried out an initial sift and selected 18 anonymous CVs for Mr Gooden and Mr Brown to review (see email 27.4.2021 Wyatt to Brown at 196-197). Five were taken forward to telephone interviews (see emails on 10.5.2021 at 195 &196). The top two were taken forward to the second stage (see email 13.5.2021 Gooden to Wyatt at 194). Neither were appointed.[72]On 14.5.2021 Mr Wyatt emailed Mr Brown saying there was another candidate, who should have gone through before and who he thought was well worth looking at. He asked Mr Brown to take a look at the anonymised CV (192). This was the claimant’s CV.[73]Mr Gooden replied that day saying that this CV compared to the others taken forward lacked management experience and strategic vision and the transition gap from Senior Engineer to Infrastructure Manager was too big. He said the people going forward were already established managers and had the experience to match. After taking advice from an HR Business Partner, Mr Gooden emailed Mr Wyatt to say that putting the new candidate through the process for process sake was the wrong thing to do and the right thing was to reject the application (192). The application was not progressed.[74]Mr Brown in XX agreed that he would have realised that the CV was the claimant’s from its content. He confirmed she was rejected because of a lack of management experience. Whilst the claimant said she had experience managing a team, this was not so.[75]On 14.5.2021 Mr Gooden held a feedback meeting with the claimant and Mr Grey and followed this up with an email to the claimant on 15.5.2021 explaining why he had decided not to take her application forward. He also suggested that she should have a good understanding of where she wanted to progress her development and offered to have a whiteboard session with her to help with her thought process (3742-3743). 10 of 42[76]In September 2021 James Kirkby was recruited to do the Network Manager role and started on 15.11.2021(353-354). He was the claimant’s line manager from then until August 2023[77]No applicant in this round of recruitment was successful. The claimant’s application was rejected because of a lack of management experience.[78]There was no sex discrimination. 2.2.5 The Claimant’s Pay for Performance (“PfP”) and readiness rating as downgraded on or around 8 April 2022 and on or around 31 March 2023.[79]The respondent’s Performance and Development Review process is operated through a system known as “MyJourney”. Their financial year runs from 1.4 to 31.3. Mid-year reviews are held mid-way through the financial year and feed into the end of year reviews held around March/April. Employees are scored on performance (Supported, Achieving, Advancing or Exceeding) and rated on their readiness to move (Strengthen, Stretch or Move).[80]Employees’ ratings are calibrated at management meetings attended by employees’ line managers and other managers, where scores and ratings are discussed to ensure consistency and fairness. The claimant’s ratings were subjected to this process, as were those of her comparators.[81]The claimant compares her scores to those of Tasawar Khan and Nawar Hamid. However, Mr Hamid was an engineer at the time (not a senior engineer like the claimant) and therefore is not an appropriate comparator in this respect.[82]The claimant was not happy with her end of year scores for 2021-22 (delivered around 8 April 2022) or those for 2022-23 (delivered around 31 March 2023). 2021-2022[83]Whilst James Kirkby, as the claimant’s line manager, was responsible for the claimant’s score and rating, Mr Gray had an input in the process because he had managed the claimant for over half the year.[84]The mid-year calibration for 2021-2022 was held on 1.12.2021 (6828-29) and was attended by Mr Gooden, Mr Gray and Mr Kirkby as well as other managers and senior engineers. The outcome of the calibration meeting was that the claimant was given an “Achieving” score for performance and a “Strengthen” rating for readiness (overall score sheet for the senior engineers at 6832-6833).[85]Mr Gray’s evidence was that feedback at the meeting matched “Achieving” and the managers thought that the claimant was not considerate towards other teams or individuals and looked at her own perspective first. Mr Gray felt she could be easily distracted and could lose focus and was sometimes overly detailed in in her communications. For example, she had given a presentation in March 2022, 11 of 42 designed to deliver a complex message in no more than 10 minutes. Feedback was that she had considerably overrun and should have been more to the point (3719).[86]Tasawar Khan was awarded a performance score of “Advancing” and a readiness score of “Stretch” (6832). Due to the passage of time, Mr Gray was unable to recall specific his feedback (TK’s mid-year review at 6945-47; AB 54-56). Nawar Hamid was awarded a performance score of “Advancing” and a readiness rating of “Stretch” (6833). Again, Mr Gray was unable to remember specific feedback due to the passage of time (NH’s mid-year review at 6937-6941; AB 46-40).[87]Mr Kirkby gave the claimant her mid-year marks at the mid-year performance review meeting on 28.1.2022 (6942-44; AB 51-53), based on Mr Gray’s feedback and the calibration meeting.[88]At the end of year review in April 2022, the claimant was awarded “Achieving” and “Strengthen” in line with the mid-year review and the end of year calibration meeting held on 6.2.2022. She believed she should have been awarded a performance score of “Exceeding” and a readiness rating of “Move” (3861). Mr Kirkby felt that she had had a good year but her communication skills required improvement and she needed to stay within scope of a task (review form at 3853-3863).[89]Mr Khan scored himself as “Exceeding”, which Mr Kirkby agreed with as he considered Mr Khan to be a role model (performance and development review form for 2021/2022 at 6486-6489). Mr Khan gave himself a readiness rating of “Stretch”, which Mr Kirkby agreed with (readiness form at 6980-6982; AB 89-91).[90]Mr Hamid scored himself as “Exceeding”, but Mr Kirby reduced this to “Advancing” as he felt Mr Hamid needed to be mindful of the level of detail he went into at meetings (performance and development review form for 2021/2021 at 6480-6485). Mr Hamid gave himself a readiness rating of “Stretch”, which Mr Kirkby agreed with (readiness form at 6976-6979; AB 85-88).[91]After the end of year review, the claimant emailed Mr Kirkby on 8.4.2022 expressing her disappointment at her year-end performance and readiness marks and opted out of “MyJourney” (5471-75). Her Union similarly notified Mr Kirby of this the same day (5470).[92]On 11.4.2022 Mr Kirkby emailed Mr Gooden informing him that the claimant disagreed with her end of year performance rating and readiness scoring and wished to drop out of MyJourney (6883). Mr Gooden replied that day, copying in Marta Zielonka (HR Business Partner) and saying the claimant would still be measured by her objectives and the rating would remain (6883). Ms Zielonka provided advice the same day (5849) saying Mr Kirkby could still sign the form with the confirmed performance rating.[93]On 12.5.2022 the claimant requested a meeting with Mr Gooden to discuss her concerns and sent him a Teams invite for 16.5.2022, which he accepted (5477-78). She believed her performance score should have been “Advancing” and her readiness rating “Move”.[94]Thereafter a further meeting was arranged with Mr Gooden, Mr Gray and Mr Kirkby to discuss the claimant’s issues (set out at 6889-6894). This meeting took place on 12 of 42 22.6.2022 at which the claimant gave a slide presentation. It was explained to her that stakeholder management feedback was that she gave detailed updates when summaries were more appropriate, and she needed to keep focus (Mr Kirkby’s email and notes at 5488-5490; claimant’s comments at 373-377). Her awarded marks remained the same. 2022-2023[95]The claimant was awarded a performance score of “Achieving” and a readiness rating of “Strengthen” for 2022-2023 (scoring spreadsheet at 6849-6855) . This was after calibration (James Kirkby’s notes at 6948-9). The claimant considered that she should be awarded “Advancing” and “Move”.[96]Mr Kirkby had a performance and development review meeting with the claimant in April 2023. Whilst the performance and development review form (3864-3877) contained positive comments, there were also areas for improvement. For example, Mr Kirkby had received a complaint from a colleague about the unacceptable way the claimant spoke to the colleague (6904; AB 13). Also a N&H Delivery Manager commented that it had been challenging to provide feedback to the claimant and her responses lacked compassion and understanding. There were still the issues of the amount of detail the claimant provided and her need to interact with her audience at the right level.[97]In her readiness form (3878-3889) the claimant said she wanted to develop into Management and then indicated an interest in pursuing Architecture as well. Mr Kirkby recorded that his recommendation was to focus on one development path.[98]Mr Khan self-scored as “Exceeding”, which Mr Kirkby agreed with due to the positive feedback he had received throughout the year on Mr Khan’s work and his willingness to help. He was given a readiness rating of “Move” (performance review at 6499-6505; readiness form at 6986-6988; AB 89-91).[99]Mr Hamid self-rated as “Exceeding”, which Mr Kirkby agreed with due to the positive feedback received for his work and being recognised with a “Make a Difference Award”. He was given a readiness rating of “Move” (performance review at 6490- 6498; readiness form at 6983-5; AB 92-4).[100]The claimant challenged her marks with Ms Guernou on 11.4.2023 (271). Ms Guernou emailed Mr Kirkby on12.2.2023 (270) and Mr Kirkby replied on13.4.2023 (270) saying he had suggested the claimant focus on her outstanding objectives and demonstrate that she had taken feedback onboard and addressed areas for improvement. The claimant’s marks were not changed.[101]The claimant’s marks were not downgraded. The reasons for her scores and ratings, and the distinctions between hers and her comparators, are supported by the facts. The marks were calibrated and justified.[102]There was no sex discrimination. 13 of 42 2.2.6 Adrian Tasker, the Claimant’s temporary manager, refused to allow the Claimant to attend ITIL training between October 2023 – January 2024 that the Claimant’s male colleagues were permitted to attend.[103]See 4.4.7 for context and details of the claimant’s sickness absence and proposals for return to work.[104]As part of the return to work proposals, Mr Tasker recommended that any training be deferred until the Christmas period to best meet the operational requirements of the wider team (628). His evidence was that the team was very busy in October and November 2023.[105]On 27.12.2023 the claimant emailed Mr Tasker to reserve a place on ITIL training in January 2024 (2942).[106]On 30.1.2024 the claimant emailed Mr Tasker asking to be booked on the ITIL training (747-8). Mr Tasker replied on 31.1.2024 (748) saying he had followed it up but the funding had been exhausted and no further courses were being booked. He had been advised that additional funding was being sought to enable additional colleagues to complete this training.[107]The claimant responded on 31.1.2023 (740) saying she was scheduled for ITIL training on 11.12.2023 at a time she was not on sick leave. She set out the several instances she had requested this training and complained that Mr Tasker had not actively responded. She asked for the budget to be reviewed and for her to attend as an exception. She said she would be adding this to her grievance as a further example of Mr Tasker’s management treatment of her. She noted that the male members of the team had done this training and claimed she was being discriminated against. Her three team colleagues had done the training on dates in November 2023 and January 2024.[108]Mr Tasker gave evidence that the claimant was not engaging with the return to work plan and was not at work and so could not attend the December training. Other employees had their training cancelled in January 2024 due to budget constraints. I accept this evidence.[109]The claimant was not at work for the December 2023 training and therefore it was reasonable for the decision to be made not to have her on the course at that time. When Mr Tasker tried to rebook it in January 2024, there was no budget.[110]This was not sex discrimination. 2.2.7 Between October 2023 and January 2024 Adrian Tasker withheld ITIL 14 of 42[111]This appears to be a repeat of 2.2.6 and the same facts and conclusion apply. Harassment related to sex 3.2.1 On or around 3 August 2020, John Gooden and David Brown mocked the Claimant in applying for the SSMP role. In emails, Mr Gooden stated that he needed to “lie down in dark room” and Mr Brown replied that he was speechless. The Claimant became aware of this after receiving[112]During his time as the claimant’s manager, David Brown held 1-2-1 meetings with the claimant and understood that she was interested in developing her career in Network Architecture. Prior to Mr Brown becoming her line manager, she had applied for Network Architect roles, albeit she had been unsuccessful (see reference to this in email to Rachel Bench from Kulvinder Matharu of 24.9.2020 at 303).[113]An opportunity arose in the N&H team for an SSPM after the post holder left the respondent. SSPM is a senior people management role and is non-technical, unlike Architecture.[114]On 3.8.2020 the claimant sent an e-mail to John Gooden enquiring whether the SSPM role was going to be advertised internally and whether there would be a secondment opportunity, saying she was looking for a challenge in a management capacity (5452). Mr Gooden forwarded it to Mr Brown commenting that he was “Going to lie in a dark room”. Mr Brown replied that he was “speechless …” (email chain at 5452)).[115]Mr Brown in evidence said that he made the comment out of exasperation because the claimant was seemingly changing the direction of her career in which she wanted to progress and it had nothing to do with her sex.[116]In XX Mr Brown said he had spent a lot of time trying to arrange training and help the claimant with her technical career path and her focus had previously always been technical. The SSPM management role was non-technical. The claimant flicked and changed career direction. He was surprised and shocked that the she wanted to apply for the SSPM role. I accept Mr Brown’s evidence.[117]Mr Gooden’s evidence was that his comment was out of surprise and frustration as this was a change in career direction, and it would be the same for any team member who kept changing career direction notwithstanding their sex. I accept this[118]The comments had nothing to do with sex. They related to the claimant’s surprising change in career direction. 15 of 42[119]This is not harassment related to sex. 3.2.2 In August and September 2020, David Brown deliberately muted the Claimant whilst on team calls with clients.[120]In August 2020 the claimant and Mr Brown were on a Teams call with a TfL service provider, Capita. Mr Brown in XX explained that he muted the claimant because of the level of aggression she was showing towards Capita and because she was not listening to him when he asked her to move on. He said he had to stop it and get the call back on track. It was the first time he had ever muted anybody and he had not done so since. He did not do it lightly, but the situation was deteriorating rapidly. He called the claimant immediately after the call and explained why he had to mute her.[121]Mr Brown denies muting the claimant in September 2020 or on any other occasion. There is no evidence of this, other than the claimant’s say so.[122]I accept Mr Brown’s evidence.[123]Mr Brown muted the claimant in order to stop the aggression she was displaying. The muting had nothing to do with sex. There was no harassment related to sex. 3.2.3 On or around 10 March 2021, David Brown called the Claimant by telephone and said, in an aggressive and threatening manner, that he would do everything in his power to stop her getting the Network Manager role.[124]Mr Brown absolutely refutes this and said in evidence that he would never use that terminology and there was no reason why he would say this.[125]Mr Gooden’s evidence is that the claimant did not report the alleged incident to him and he had no knowledge of it.[126]The claimant’s evidence in XX was that she told Mr Gray and he said to her not to worry about it; managers change. Also in XX she said she spoke to Linda Gadalla who said it was naughty and Dave Brown could be very direct.[127]The claimant did not raise a complaint or grievance about it and there is no written evidence of the allegation.[128]Given that Mr Brown had been supportive towards the claimant, I find it unlikely that he would have said these words. Furthermore, it is likely the claimant would have raised a complaint about such conduct, if it had happened. Therefore, I find that Mr Brown did not say these words. 16 of 42[129]The words were not said. Even if they were, they had nothing to do with sex. There was no harassment related to sex. 3.2.4 On or around 22 June 2022, John Gooden told the Claimant that she needed to find a job outside of the company and that she should change. This was stated in an aggressive manner.[130]The claimant had challenged her performance and readiness ratings for 2021- 2022 (see 2.2.5) and a meeting had taken place on 22.6.2022 to explain her marks and to discuss.[131]The claimant had also put in her performance and development review form for 2021/2022 that she wanted to pursue an Architecture related pathway although she was also interested in Management.[132]On 24.6.2022 the claimant emailed Mr Gooden confirming again that she was opting out of MyJourney and questioning the process. She also said she wanted to move into a Network Solution Architect role and have an opportunity to shadow the team for two days per week. She commented that there was “no end in sight in getting Nawar to move on” and that it was “best we move on and get the next person in” (3716-3717).[133]Mr Gooden responded the same day again explaining the reasons for her performance score and readiness rating and confirmed there was no opportunity at that time for her in Network Architecture (3716).[134]On 22.7.2022 the claimant emailed her comments on the 22.6.2022 meeting notes to Mr Gooden suggesting bias, and that she would now like Nawar to be moved out of the Solutions Architects Teams (4465-7).[135]On 23.7.2022 Mr Gooden replied saying the claimant had not listened or taken on board anything they had said. When given examples of behaviours, she replied that she had always worked in that way, to which he commented “its way time you changed”. He suggested it might be a good option for her to “seek opportunities outside of N&H” as it would give her experience on how some of the other teams operated and to build her skillset (4463-64).[136]The comment was made because of the claimant’s attitude and behaviour. It had nothing to do with sex. There was no harassment related to sex. 3.2.5 On or around 3 February 2023, John Gooden compared the Claimant to a dog in his email to Djamila Guernou by stating a “dog sees a squirrel, he off… squirrel”. The Claimant became aware of this after receiving 17 of 42[137]See 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 for context.[138]Mr Gooden sent an email to Ms Guernou on 3.2.2023 (252) telling her how frustrating and annoying it was that the claimant failed to take feedback on board and kept changing direction “like when a dog sees a squirrel, he off … squirrel”. Mr Gooden said this was in relation to the claimant’s constant change of direction in development, which he likened to when a dog is easily distracted by something and runs off in another direction. I accept that evidence.[139]The remark was made because of the claimant frequently changing her career direction. It had nothing to do with sex. There was no harassment related to sex. 3.2.6 On or around 9 August 2023 John Gooden wrote to Sandi Ketter HR strongly requesting the Claimant was suspended and requesting the Claimant was moved to another department.[140]Mr Gooden was becoming concerned about the claimant’s behaviours. He wrote to Sandra Ketter (Employee Relations Partner), copying David Brown, on 9.8.2023 (573-7) indicating that the claimant’s behaviour was disruptive and affected his management team. She was out of control, choosing what she got involved in and ignoring what was asked of her. He attached emails from David Brown where management instructions had been ignored more than once. He strongly recommended that for everyone’s wellbeing and the reputation of his teams that the claimant be suspended until the grievance (see 4.4.15) had been concluded or alternatively that she be moved outside of N&H for that period.[141]In evidence, Mr Gooden explained that he did not propose suspension as a disciplinary measure. He was worried about the welling of his team. I accept this[142]The suggestion was made because of the concern about the claimant’s behaviour. It had nothing to do with sex. There was no harassment related to sex. 3.2.7 In January and February 2024, Adrian Tasker tried to force the Claimant to participate in the My Journey 2023/2024 PfP rating process even though it would result in the Claimant being downgraded.[143]In an email of 25.1.2024 (727) the claimant reminded Ms Ketter that she had opted out of MyJourney for 2023/24 when she emailed Mr Kirkby on 11.5.2023. She said this was because she had spent most of the year from June 2023 raising her grievance about her 2022/23 performance score and it would be unfair to score her for 2023/24 due to the possibility of bias reflecting on her performance score. She asked to be excluded from the 2023/24 performance scoring or at least to provide her with a score of “Achieved” and readiness rating of “Move”. 18 of 42[144]The claimant emailed Mr Tasker on 31.1.2024 (753) repeating what she had written in the email of 25.1.2024 to Ms Ketter.[145]Mr Tasker’s evidence was that it was not unusual for employees to receive performance scores and readiness ratings even when they had been sick or absent and that only the time when they were at work was considered. There was no downgrading for absence or due to grievances being brought. The claimant could opt out of MyJourney but the organization still had to set objectives for her and give her a performance rating. This would simply take place without her input. I accept this evidence.[146]On 28.2.2024 Mr Tasker emailed the claimant (751-2) saying he appreciated that she had opted out of MyJourney but she would still be assigned objectives and she needed to supply her rating. He had booked a session with her the following week to enable her to supply her evidence.[147]The claimant provided a detailed reply the same day (750-1) saying she had leave the following week and so would not be attending and she wanted to hear from Ms Ketter before proceeding. Amongst other things, she named the managers against whom she had brought a grievance and suggested she was being set up to fail. She said it was unlikely within the current toxic environment that anyone would support her after seeing how management had treated her as they would not want to jeopardise their own career. She suggested that MyJourney was biased and open to abuse and that being coerced into participating in MyJourney and calibration was unfair at this time.[148]The calibration session took place for the 2023/24 performance year and was attended by the entire management group. Based on the time the claimant had been in work, she was awarded a performance score of “Achieving” and a readiness rating of “Strengthen”. All members of N&H were given a performance score and readiness rating.[149]All the respondent’s employees went through the review process, regardless of absence or grievances. Mt Tasker was simply following process. This had nothing to do with sex. It was not harassment related to sex. 3.2.8 Between 16 August 2023 and 27 March 2024 David Brown set the Claimant up to fail in relation to the Capita project (para 3.213 POC)[150]The claimant was working on a project whereby Capita was to deliver contractual obligations to TfL regarding IP address management (IPAM) features in phase one and enhancements in phase two. Phase one obligations needed to be completed before phase two was considered.[151]Mr Brown’s evidence was that the claimant tried to discuss phase two enhancements on calls with Capita despite Mr Brown repeatedly informing her that she needed to concentrate on phase one and that phase two would need a business 19 of 42 plan and funding. He said that the claimant started talking to other areas of the business about obtaining additional funding. I accept this evidence.[152]In an email of 7.8.2023 to the claimant (568-9) Mr Brown asked her to focus on an IPAM solution and not on enhancement deployment. In an email to Mr Gooden on 9.8.2023 (568) Mr Brown said that he was not sure how he could be more clear on his instructions to focus on the requirements for the project rather than a product and future funding.[153]In the same email Mr Brown indicated that he was not comfortable with the claimant attending an upcoming meeting with Infoblox regarding IPAM as he was concerned she would pursue her own agenda.[154]The claimant suggested that the meeting with Inflobox take place after 3.9.2023 when she returned from leave (5708). Mr Brown suggested a week in August and the meeting took place on 18.8.23 (5708). It was to be recorded for the claimant to review at a later date.[155]Mr Brown was concerned about the claimant attending the meeting because she failed to follow instructions and pursued her own agenda. However, he did not set her up to fail. His actions had nothing to do with sex. It was not harassment related to sex. 3.2.9 In the week commencing 3 June 2024 David Brown blocked the Claimant from attending meetings.[156]On 30.5.2024 the claimant emailed Daren Neill (Head of Technology Service Operations) saying she was being excluded from N&H meetings such as those with Capita (6087).[157]Mr Brown denies blocking her from such meetings but points out that, by this time, the claimant was on long term secondment in Cyber Security and no longer part of the team. Consequently, there was no reason for her to be on calls with Capita any longer as they were not relevant to her role.[158]In evidence Mr Brown explained that he did not mind her attending and it was only when she became disruptive that it became untenable. When new invites were sent out, she was not put on the list because the invitations only went to those who needed to attend. However, she was later put back on the list at her request.[159]In an email on 11.10.2024 from Mr Gooden to John Pool and Jules Gascoigne and copied to Ms Guernou (6111) he raised the issue of the claimant’s involvement in these meetings being disruptive and undermining James Kirkby. Ms Guernou replied the same day (6111) indicating that business as usual incidents should be dealt with by the TSO team and this excluded the claimant whilst she was on secondment. 20 of 42[160]There was no good reason for the claimant to be on these calls whilst she was on secondment to Cyber Security. That is why she was taken off the circulation list. It had nothing to do with sex. It was not harassment related to sex. Victimisation Did the following amount to protected acts:4.1.1 On or around 23 June 2022, the Claimant challenged the outcome of the PfP by email.4.1.2 On or around 5 June 2023, the Claimant raised a grievance for bullying and harassment.4.1.3 Bringing her claim in the Employment Tribunal on 23 August 2023.4.1.4 Challenging the outcome of her PFP assessment verbally and by email on around 23 June 2022.4.1.5 Lodging a second grievance alleging sex discrimination on 5 April 2024.4.1.6 Referring her case to ACAS on 5 April 2024.[161]It has not been challenged that these are protected acts and I find them to be so. Alleged detriments 4.4.1 Adrian Tasker, the Claimant’s temporary manager, refused to allow the Claimant to attend training between October 2023 – January 2024 that the Claimant’s male colleagues were permitted to attend.[162]This is a repeat of 2.2.6 under a different legal label. The facts are the same, as are the concluding reasons for the non-attendance. This was not a detriment because of a protected act. 4.4.2 In October 2023, Adrian Tasker did not accept the Claimant’s fit note which led to the Claimant being unofficially suspended from work. 21 of 42[163]When Adrian Tasker took over the pastoral side of the claimant’s management in August 2023, the claimant was in receipt of a fit note saying stress at work. This was followed by further fit notes for stress at work.[164]On 4.10.2023 the claimant sent Mr Tasker an email (626) attaching a fit note for the period 4.10.2023 to 9.11.2023 (5778). It referred to anxiety and stress at work and said the claimant may be fit for work and “would benefit from working remotely/work from home”. The claimant said in her email that she would like to return to work with the adjustments in place.[165]Mr Tasker emailed Mr Gooden on 4.10.23 (625) with the claimant’s email and fit note attached, and said that he felt nothing had changed. She was still signed off with stress and anxiety and, as an operational area, they could not accommodate these adjustments.[166]Mr Gooden replied on 4.10.24 (625) saying it would be difficult to monitor and manage anxiety and stress when they would have no contact and the claimant was remote. Also, the workload was high and they had a duty of care to their people. He would prefer that the claimant stay off work until she had recovered.[167]Therefore, Mr Tasker requested that her current sickness absence be extended on SAP to 9.11.2023 (622).[168]After discussing the situation with Mr Gooden and Ms Ketter, Mr Tasker sent the claimant an email on 9.10.2023 (5780) saying that he had not yet seen the Occupational Health (OH) report and until he had clarity from HR, the official position was that she was to remain off work.[169]It is incorrect that Mr Tasker did not accept the claimant’s fit note, as is the allegation that she was unofficially suspended from work (see 4.4.8 regarding suspension allegation).[170]There was no detriment because of a protected act. 4.4.3 On the Claimant’s proposed return to work in November and December 2023, the Respondent did not allow the Claimant to work in the National Solutions Architecture team as alternative duties as requested by the Claimant and Mr Tasker misled the Claimant on trying to facilitate this.[171]In an email to Ms Guernou on 17.10.2023, Mr Tasker provided an update on the claimant’s return to work (630-32) and said that he thought she was angling for a secondment in the Architect’s team but he was not convinced about her suitability. Mr Tasker’s evidence was that an Architect’s role was effectively a step-up from the Network Assurance role and the claimant was insufficiently qualified.[172]On 30.11.2023 Mr Tasker sent an email to Ms Guernou (668-9) informing her that the claimant had repeatedly requested to work in the Architect’s team but that he did not believe that this would resolve her concerns about coming into contact 22 of 42 with the managers she had complained about. She continued to assert that there were vacancies in this area but Mr Tasker knew of no jobs being advertised there.[173]Mr Tasker met with Ms Guernou and Ms Ketter on 5.12.2023 (662) when Ms Guernou said she would enquire about any suitable roles for the claimant. She spoke with Dipen Patel (Head of Hosting and Infrastructure Architecture), and initially understood that he could accommodate the claimant. Ms Guernou emailed Mr Tasker on 21.12.2023 (690) telling him Mr Patel would accommodate the claimant temporarily in his team. Mr Tasker emailed the claimant the same day (2943-44) telling her he had a way forward on the secondment and was waiting for the official nod to progress.[174]However, on 22.12.2023 Mr Patel emailed Ms Guernou (690) and explained that he was building Network Architecture capability with permanent colleagues, which would take a lot of his time. Neither he nor other permanent Network Architects in the team would have time to support the claimant. Mr Patel asked if they could discuss this when he returned. On 3.1.2024, he confirmed his position and Mr Guernou sent a draft email to Mr Tasker for him to send out to the claimant explaining the situation. Mr Tasker sent this to the claimant on 4.1.2024 (705-6).[175]There is no National Solutions Architecture team, and the claimant has not demonstrated that there were any alternative duties for her in an Architect’s team. There is no evidence that Mr Tasker misled the claimant.[176]There was no detriment because of a protected act. 4.4.4 In January and February 2024, Adrian Tasker tried to force the Claimant to participate in the PfP rating process even though this would result in the Claimant being downgraded as she had not been working for a substantial period.[177]This is a repeat of 3.2.7 with a different legal label. The facts are the same, as are the concluding reasons. This was not a detriment because of a protected act. 4.4.5 In January 2024, the Claimant was asked by Adrian Tasker to backdate her sick notes to November 2023 which would have resulted in a reduction in pay.[178]The claimant provided fit notes up to 9.11.2023. No further fit notes were provided, but the claimant refused to return to work (see 4.4.7 and 4.4.8 for context). On 29.2.2024 there was a meeting between Mr Tasker, Ms Guernou and Ms Ketter (Mr Tasker’s notes at 781) to discuss the claimant’s continued absence. She was off work and in receipt of full pay but without a fit note.[179]Ms Guernou suggested contacting the claimant to get a fit note to cover the period she had been off work. Mr Tasker emailed the claimant that day (780) asking 23 of 42 her to obtain a sick note from her GP to cover her continued absence and to have it backdated to November 2023. Mr Tasker’s evidence is that it was done for administrative purposes and her pay was never under discussion. I accept his[180]The request was made in order to regularise the situation, as the claimant was refusing to return to work and did not have fit notes for the entirety of her absence. It was not related to sex.[181]There was no detriment because of a protected act. 4.4.6 Between October 2023 and January 2024 Adrian Tasker withheld[182]This is a repeat of 2.2.6 and 2.2.7 with a different legal label. The facts are the same, as are the concluding reasons. This was not a detriment because of a protected act. 4.4.7 Imposing sick leave on the Claimant between 9 August 2023 and 9 November 2023[183]On 10.8.2023 the claimant sent Mr Tasker a fit note for the period 9.8.2023 to 9.9.2023 saying “stress at work”; you are not fit for work (608-9). Mr Tasker suggested he add the sickness absence to SAP (5701). Shortly after the claimant told Mr Tasker that the surgery got it wrong and she would provide another fit note.[184]There is an email dated 10.8.2023 from the claimant to herself, which looks like a draft email to Mr Tasker, with part of a fit note copied onto it saying “you may be fit for work” with “amended duties” of “working from home with amended duties, details to be agreed with employer” (5697).[185]On 15.8.2023 the claimant sent an email with another fit note to Mr Tasker (5700) and informed him she had worked throughout this period and was currently away on training and annual leave, as agreed with James. The fit note dated 15.8.2023 (5702) also covered the period 9.8.2023 to 9.9.2023 and said “stress”; you may be fit for work” with amended duties to be decided between the patient and occupational health.[186]Mr Tasker asked Mr Kirkby to remove existing entries from SAP and add sickness instead (5705). Mr Tasker emailed the clamant on 5.9.2023 (5729) and told her that with stress they could not offer her amended duties, as being at work could 24 of 42 aggravate her condition (5729). He referred her to OH (5738-9). Sandra Ketter advised that the claimant should refrain from working in line with TfL’s duty of care (5737).[187]The claimant attended OH on 2.10.2023. On 3.10.2023 she sent an email to Mr Tasker saying she would be extending the fit note until they discussed the outcome of the OH meeting and the adjustments to return to work (5777). She then sent Mr Tasker the fit note from 8.10.2023 to 9.11.2023 (see 4.4.2 above).[188]Mr Tasker received the OH report (5772-73) on 9.10.2023. It said the claimant was fit to undertake her usual duties and that, if operationally feasible, ideally she would not have face to face contact with the individuals concerned in the grievance (see 4.4.15 for grievance).[189]On 13.10.2023, Mr Tasker held a meeting with the claimant and her union representative to discuss a phased return to work (Mr Tasker’s notes of meeting at 623). The claimant said she wanted to work from home and any work she was given should be meaningful, such as a secondment to another area. She also suggested working from the canteen, which Mr Tasker explained was not possible due to confidentiality. He offered to enquire about other roles and temporary arrangements.[190]Mr Tasker drafted a response to the claimant on 19.10.2023 (628), which was reviewed by HR and sent to the claimant on 24.10.23 (5795-6). He proposed a phased return to work to her substantive role. She could work from home but would return to the office gently, starting with one day a week from the week commencing 23.10.2023. Several other adjustments were also proposed. She would do Technical Delivery Operational Centre (TDOC) cover which was a different environment where there would be minimal interaction with the rest of the N&H team (apart from technicians on the rota). He told her that TfL does not offer permanent working from home but there was hybrid working where appropriate.[191]By 26.10.2023 there had been no immediate response from the claimant and so Mr Tasker contacted her (623). The claimant then sent a response that day with questions (2777) and indicated that the suggestion of hybrid working did not comply with the medical advice. She said the return to work plan was setting her up to fail and she was unable to return to a working environment with those she had raised a grievance against.[192]Mr Tasker drafted a response and, after running it past Ms Ketter, sent it to the claimant on 31.10.23 (636-7). In it he said that the top priority was for her to return to work and be fully operational in the shortest reasonable time. He set out a timetable for increasing her days in the office throughout November 2023 and explained in more detail that TDOC was a discreet area away from the rest of the N&H team.[193]The claimant responded the same day (5801-2) requesting an alternative local work placement or secondment to Network Solutions Architecture. As previously stated, there is no such team as “Network Solutions Architecture”. Mr Tasker responded after checking with HR on 2.11.2023 (5801) saying the claimant was at liberty to apply for other roles but there was a volume of work in her current role that needed to be done. 25 of 42[194]On 2.11.2023 the claimant asked to discuss it further (5800) and a meeting was arranged on 14.11.2023, although it was rearranged to 23.11.2023 due to her trade union representative not being available (Mr Tasker’s notes at 661). Mr Tasker presented the phased return to work plan (661).[195]Mr Tasker’s evidence was that the union representative said the plan was reasonable. I accept his evidence. The claimant found the proposal unacceptable and said there was a toxic atmosphere in her work area that made it unsuitable for her to return, and TfL should secure her an Architect’s role (661).[196]Mr Tasker escalated the matter to Ms Guernou on 30.11.23 (669).[197]On 6.12.2023, Mr Tasker emailed the claimant saying he was ensuring that SAP was up to date and asked her to provide all relevant sick notes (5097). The claimant responded on 7.12.2023 (5093-9) commenting that the following fit notes should not count as sick leave: 9.8.2023 to 9.9.2023 because she was working from home until 5.9.2023 when she was forced to log off the system and sick leave was imposed on her (informally suspended); 8.9.2023 to 9.10.2023 because she was waiting for an OH appointment from 5.9.2023 to 2.10.2023 and the return to work meeting until 13.10.2023; 4.10.2023 to 9.11.2023 because she was waiting to agree return to work adjustments.[198]Mr Tasker did not impose sick leave on the claimant. The claimant refused to return to work because she disagreed with the return to work plan. This had nothing to do with sex.[199]There was no detriment because of a protected act. 4.4.8 Placing the Claimant on ambiguous suspension between 5 September 2023 and 12 March 2024[200]See 4.4.2, 4.4.3 and 4.4.7 for context.[201]Mr Tasker emailed Ms Guernou (copying Ms Ketter) on 30.11.2023 explaining the return to work issues (668-9). Ms Guernou replied the same day (669). They both agreed that working in Architecture would not resolve the problem as the Architecture team was aligned to the colleagues the claimant had complained about, and they worked in adjacent physical locations. Also, there were no vacancies in the Architecture team.[202]Mr Tasker, Ms Guernou and Ms Ketter met on the 5.12.2023 and agreed that Ms Guernou would contact other teams to find out whether there was a suitable alternative role for the claimant (Mr Tasker’s summary note of meeting at 662). The same day Mr Tasker emailed the claimant to tell her a formal request had been made for any suitable roles for her to move into (5135).[203]After failing to get a placement in Mr Patel’s Architecture team (see 4.4.3 above), the claimant emailed Mr Tasker on 4.1.2024 (693-705) saying she believed it was 26 of 42 possible for her to be on loan to the Network Solutions Architects team for the duration of her grievance under a local arrangement.[204]Mr Guernou made further enquiries to find an acceptable role for the claimant until one was found in Cyber Security in March 2024.[205]The claimant was not put on ambiguous suspension. She refused to return to work. This had nothing to do with sex.[206]There was no detriment because of a protected act. 4.4.9 Refusing to allow the Claimant to work on amended duties recommended by the Claimant’s GP between 5 September 2023 to 25 March 2024.[207]See 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.4.7 and 4.4.8 for facts.[208]In March 2024 Ms Guernou managed to secure a temporary placement for the claimant in Cyber Security with a start date of 25.3.2024 (800-1).[209]There was no refusal to allow the claimant to work on amended duties. A return to work plan was produced with amended duties, but the claimant refused to accept it. None of this had anything to do with sex.[210]There was no detriment because of a protected act. 4.4.10 Adrian Tasker resisting and delaying allocating the Claimant to a new team from 2 October 2023 to 25 March 2024[211]See 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.4.7, 4.4.8. and 4.4.9[212]Mr Tasker did not resist and delay allocating the claimant to a new team. There was no position available in another suitable team until March 2024. This had nothing to do with sex.[213]There was no detriment because of a protected act. 4.4.11 Adrian Tasker obstructing the deployment or failing to deploy the Claimant to her preferred new team on her return to work between October 2023 to January 2024 27 of 42[214]This is a repeat of 4.4.10 with slightly different wording. The facts are the same, as are the concluding reasons. This was not a detriment because of a protected 4.4.12 Adrian Tasker failing to adjust the Claimant PfP/Readiness annual rating scores for 2023/2024 to take into account sickness absence and attempting to impose a proposed unfair PfP calibration process involving managers named in the first grievance 28th February 2024[215]See 3.2.7.[216]The claimant was given a score and rating, which had gone through a proper calibration process and was appropriately evidenced. There was no reason to adjust her marks. This had nothing to do with sex.[217]There was no detriment because of a protected act. 4.4.13 Adrian Tasker requiring the Claimant to alter/backdate sick notes on 29 February 2024[218]This is a repeat of 4.4.5 with slightly different wording. The facts are the same, as are the concluding reasons. This was not a detriment because of a protected 4.4.14 Failing to permanently allocate the Claimant to a new team from March 2024 onwards to the current date[219]The claimant started on a temporary placement in the Cyber Security team on 25.3.2024 (800-1). Her substantive role remained in Network Assurance.[220]It would be improper to allocated the claimant to a new team permanently without going through the appropriate process. This had nothing to do with sex.[221]This was not a detriment because of a protected act. 4.4.15 Failing to adjudicate on the Claimant’s grievance filed on 5 June 2023. This is ongoing as at 19/09/24 – Grievance Outcome meeting still awaited 28 of 42[222]The claimant made two grievances on 5.6.2023. The first related to her readiness rating of “Strengthen” for 2021/22 and 2022/23. The second related to her performance score of “Achieving” for 2021/22 and 2022/23.[223]On 13.6.2023 the claimant stated that her grievance included bullying and harassment allegations against her line manager, James Kirkby. Towards the end of June, the claimant submitted a 165 page document of evidence and complained that James Kirkby, David Brown and John Gooden had withheld progression opportunities from her. She complained of sex discrimination. Mike Gray was also implicated.[224]Due to the nature of the allegations, an independent organisation, Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC), was appointed to investigate and produce a report. Rebekah Primrose, an employment solicitor at PWC, was assigned to the case.[225]The claimant went on sick leave in August 2023.[226]Ms Primrose had an initial call with the claimant on 15.9.2023. Due to the claimant having technical difficulties, it was rescheduled (616). At the rescheduled meeting on 22.9.2023 the claimant provided a further 41 pages of documents and the meeting needed to be postponed. Whilst a further meeting was scheduled on 3.10.2023, it was cancelled after the claimant requested that all communications be through email. The claimant submitted two further evidence packs totalling over 450 pages.[227]On 5.10.2023 Ms Primrose provided the claimant with the proposed terms of reference totalling 36 allegations and asked for comments. The claimant emailed Ms Primrose on 26.10.2023 indicating that she would respond once a satisfactory decision on her return to work had been reached (681). On 13.11.2023 Ms Primrose emailed the claimant to say she was proceeding under the terms of reference provided, so as to move forward and seek a resolution (680).[228]The claimant proceeded to provide hundreds more pages of evidence to Ms Primrose and in January 2024 sent an updated terms of reference with over 200 allegations (712). On 19.1.2024 Ms Primrose updated Ms Ketter, informing her that there were now nearly 850 pages of evidence to work through and it was taking a considerable amount of time (711). By 20.3.2024, the claimant was proposing 279 allegations (802).[229]On 5.4.2024 the claimant raised a grievance against Adrian Tasker relating to the ITIL training and including allegations of sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation. This was added to the existing grievances.[230]On 9.4.2024, and in the absence of an agreement, Ms Primrose told the claimant that the investigation would proceed on the basis of terms of reference that were drawn up in February 2024 (826). The claimant disagreed and requested a hold be put on the investigation whilst she escalated the matter (826).[231]PWC continued with the investigation and produced a detailed report on 10.7.2024 (850-4023). 29 of 42[232]Ros Peasgood (Consultant Infrastructure Architect at TfL) was appointed to determine the grievance. The claimant was told on 25.7.2024 that Ms Peasgood would arrange a meeting with her (4026). Ms Peasgood and the claimant agreed to meet after they both returned from leave on 9.9.2024 (4026).[233]On 1.9.2024 there was a significant cyber attack on TfL and access to their IT systems was restricted. It was not until December 2024 that a relatively normal service was reestablished.[234]Ms Peasgood emailed the claimant on 5.9.2024 to inform her that the cyber attack was preventing her from accessing certain systems and was limiting her from progressing her review of the PWC report. On 16.9.2024 the claimant suggested that the meeting be left until after the impact of the attack had settled (4211).[235]On 6.11.2024 the claimant sent an email to Ms Peasgood saying she believed that most systems were now back online and it would be good to progress to an outcome of the grievance (4212). An outcome meeting was arranged for 28.11.2024 (4214), although it was rescheduled for 22.11.2024 due to the union representative’s unavailability.[236]At the meeting Ms Peasgood explained that she had reviewed the investigation findings and evidence for 91 allegations, and found that there was either evidence to disprove or insufficient evidence to prove these allegations. The decision was not to uphold the grievances including that of 5.4.2024 against Mr Tasker. Ms Peasgood sent the outcome letter and detailed spreadsheet of findings to the claimant on 22.11.2024 (4219-4228).[237]The claimant was responsible for delays in progressing the grievance. Given the amount of evidence and the large number of allegations that needed to be worked through, the grievance was handled within a reasonable timeframe and an outcome produced.[238]None of this was to do with sex. There was no detriment because of a protected 4.4.16 Ongoing failure to deal with the Claimant’s second grievance of 5 April[239]See 4.4.15. The facts are the same, as are the concluding reasons. This was not a detriment because of a protected act. 4.4.17 Senior Management refusing or resisting the Claimant’s requests for amended duties AT and DG and HR between beginning of September 2023 and February 2024 and Senior Management ignoring the Occupational Health Report recommendations. 30 of 42[240]See 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.4.7, 4.4.8. and 4.4.9.[241]The respondent provided appropriate amended duties, albeit the claimant unreasonably rejected their proposals for a return to work. The respondent considered the OH report recommendations and did not ignore them. This had nothing to do with sex.[242]There was no detriment because of a protected act. 4.4.18 Delaying the Claimant’s GDPR request of 17 November 2023.[243]Karen Amazigo (Senior Advisor with the Employee Services Team at the relevant time) was assigned to deal with the claimant’s November subject access request (SAR). The claimant had submitted four previous SARs and the November SAR needed to be reviewed the see if it repeated any of the previous requests. There were duplications and the scope of the search generated over 2,200 emails (see email on 22.11.2023 from Ms Amazigo to Rita Scollan - Team Leader).[244]Ms Amazigo gave evidence that the SAR was extensive and covered a number of people over a large timeframe. She said she had other SARs to work on at the same time and could not favour the claimant. Ms Amazigo explained that, for these reasons it was not possible to complete the task within the normal 1 month time frame. I accept this evidence.[245]Ms Scollen gave Ms Amazigo the wording to extend the deadline to 3 months (665), in line with data protection legislation. Ms Amazigo wrote to the claimant explaining that because the request was extensive, the deadline for responding was extended to 17.2.2024 (716).[246]The claimant asked on 19.12.2023 for the SAR to be expedited as there was an urgent and legal requirement (686-7). Rita Scollan replied on 21.12.2023 (686) explaining that the time extension was required, as provided for under the data protection legislation, due to the large volume of emails to review (over 2,000).[247]On 14.2.2024, Ms Amazigo provided the claimant with the response to the November SAR (721-3).[248]It was reasonable to extend the time for dealing with the SAR due to the large volume of documents it involved. The request was responded to within the statutory timeframe. This had nothing to do with sex.[249]There was no detriment because of a protected act. 4.4.19 Amending annual leave from 09/08/2023 to 09/09/2023 as sick leave on SAP and 5-day AL allocated over Christmas 2023 was approved at short 31 of 42 notice and then cancelled and AL holiday allowance was not forwarded over to 2024 allowance.[250]Although Adrian Tasker was managing the claimant from a pastoral perspective at this time, James Kirkby was still her line manager on the SAP system and was responsible for updating her SAP records.[251]The claimant was on sick leave between 9.8.2023 and 9.9.2023 and was marked as sick on SAP (see 4.4.7). Mr Kirkby had tried to enter a sickness absence on SAP from 9.8.2023 to 9.9.2023 in accordance with the claimant’s fit note, but the system showed that it conflicted with annual leave booked for 21.8.2023 to 1.9.2023. Mr Tasker confirmed that the existing entries needed to be removed and sickness added in its place (5705).[252]On 16.8.2023 and 16.11.2023 the claimant requested annual leave over the Christmas period (5712; 6989; AB 98), which was approved in November 2023 (6991-2; AB 99-100). She then put a cancellation request in through SAP and informed Mr Tasker of this on 29.12.2023. The claimant recorded on SAP that her annual leave was no longer valid because she was awaiting the outcome of her return to work adjustments and was unable to travel abroad (5855-6).[253]The claimant emailed Mr Tasker on 2.1.2024 (5854) requesting the status of her Christmas/New Year leave as it was still showing on SAP after she had cancelled it (5854).[254]Mr Kirkby’s evidence was that he does not recall this specific issue and thinks he was on annual leave himself at the time and did not action the request at the time. He said he certainly did not take any action, or fail to take any action, because the claimant challenged her scores and ratings and raised a grievance. In any event, the claimant’s leave was carried over to the following leave year. I accept this evidence.[255]None of this was related to sex. There was no detriment because of a protected Direct age discrimination Comparators 5.1 The Claimant, at the date of presentation of her second claim, was 53 and a Senior Network Engineer. She compares herself to Nawar Hamid, Network Engineer [aged 47], and Tas Khan, Network Senior Engineer [aged 42], and Adnan Zahid, Network Engineer [aged 36]. . Allegations 5.2.1 Prioritising younger staff for key training [ITIL training November 2023 - January 24] 32 of 42[256]See 2.2.6. In August 2023 James Kirkby asked employees if they had a preference for training dates, and a schedule of dates was drawn up (5808-9). The claimant was scheduled for 11.12.2023 and Mr Khan (who is younger than the claimant) was scheduled for 15.1.2024. Training did not occur in January 2024 because of budget constraints.[257]The respondent did not prioritize younger staff for key training. There was no age discrimination. 5.2.2 Mr Hamid’s secondment to the Network Solutions Architecture Team for 2 years and Tas Khan being selected for a sequential secondment.[258]See 2.2.2.[259]Mr Hamid was not seconded to the Network Architecture team (there is no Network Solutions Architecture team) for 2 years. He had a shadowing placement for 1 year and 9 months. He was given this because of his career aspirations and not because of his age. Mr Khan, who is younger than both Mr Hamid and the claimant was selected for a sequential placement because of his career aspirations, although in the event, he was never offered it.[260]At the time Mr Hamid was offered the shadowing opportunity, the claimant’s focus was on developing her Management skills, rather than Archtieture.[261]There was no age discrimination. 5.2.3 Awarding an unusually long part-time secondment placement to Nawar Hamid[262]See 2.2.2[263]The period of 1 year and 9 months shadowing was given in order for Mr Hamid to complete the project he was working on. It was nothing to do with age.[264]There was no age discrimination. 5.2.4 Failing to give proper credit for the Claimant’s experience and senior engineer grading in the decision on allocation of secondment/shadowing opportunities 33 of 42[265]See 2.2.2 and 2.2.3.[266]There is nothing in the facts of this case to demonstrate that age had anything to do with decisions on secondment or shadowing opportunities. There was no age discrimination. Overall Conclusion[267]I have considered whether cumulatively, there is anything in the facts, which shows a prima facie case of sex or age discrimination, harassment or victimisation. I find that this has not been demonstrated in any way. Consequently, taking each of the allegations both singularly and together, I conclude that the claimant was not subjected to any sex or age discrimination, harassment or victimisation.[268]Given this decision, there is no need for me to determine the jurisdictional issues relating to time limitation. Approved By: