Ms J Jura v Enable Leisure and Culture: 2306022/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2306022/2023Venue this caseHearing 16 August 2024 to determine the issues and make case management orders. A list of issues was agreed, during which the Tribunal gave leave to the Claimant to amend her claim on three points (see paragraphs 4- 7). 13. The Claimant made further applications for amendment after that hearing. At the hearing held on 19 December 2024 the Tribunal considered: 1.1 The Respondent’s application to amend its ET3 1.2 The Claimant’s application to amend her clai
Between
Ms J JuraClaimantEnable Leisure and CultureRespondent
Before
Employment Judge Taylor
Members
Ms J BirdMs H BharadiaDate 8 May 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s dismissal was not direct discrimination. The claim that the Respondent dismissed the Claimant because she was a woman is not upheld.[2]The Respondent did not victimise the Claimant. The claims that the Respondent victimised the Claimant are not upheld.[3]All of the Claimant’s claims are not upheld and are dismissed.
REASONS
[1]This matter came before the Tribunal to determine the Claimant’s claim about direct sex discrimination and victimisation on the ground of sex. The Respondent defended the claims in full.[2]The Claimant was engaged as a worker by the Respondent, as a Tennis Coach from September 2012 to 14 June 2023.[3]Early conciliation started on 1 September and ended on 13 October 2023. The claim form was presented on 31 October 2023. Introduction The Witnesses
Introduction
[4]The Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant.[5]Mr Biplob Karmakar, the Claimant’s husband, provided a witness statement, the Tribunal considered more relevant to remedy. There was insufficient time to call him to give evidence.[6]For the Respondent, the Tribunal heard evidence from: Mr Tim Glenn, Area Manager Mr Chris Lake, HR Business Partner and Mr Fabio Gouveia, Operations Manager[7]The hearing was listed for three days to determine liability and remedy, if applicable.[8]The Respondent had prepared a bundle of witness statements and two bundles comprising of 570 pages. At the Claimant’s request a small bundle of additional documents was provided by the Respondent which mainly consisted of cover emails. This bundle was provided at the start of the second day of the hearing.[9]Other paginated documents were added to the bundle including three screen shots of the respondent’s reception desk which included a screen displaying general information about the club for members. This information including the image, qualifications and contact details of the coaching team, including the claimant (568, 569 and 570). Preliminary matters[10]There was a case management hearing on 24 August 2024 and a second preliminary hearing on 19 December 2024.[11]The start of the final hearing was delayed for technical reasons and began at 10.50am.[12]A case management hearing was held in this case on 16 August 2024 to determine the issues and make case management orders. A list of issues was agreed, during which the Tribunal gave leave to the Claimant to amend her claim on three points (see paragraphs 4- 7).[13]The Claimant made further applications for amendment after that hearing. At the hearing held on 19 December 2024 the Tribunal considered:1.1 The Respondent’s application to amend its ET31.2 The Claimant’s application to amend her claim1.3 The Claimant’s disclosure applications.[14]The written order following this hearing was received by the Tribunal office on the morning of the final hearing. The parties had not seen the written order, therefore the hearing was adjourned in order for a copy to be sent to them by email and to allow time for them to review it.[15]The hearing resumed at 11.30am. Both parties agreed that nothing further arose from the order because it had simply confirmed what they knew to have had been decided at that hearing.[16]The Claimant then made a number of further applications at the start of the final hearing, prompted by the disclosure of documents: to make further amendments to her claim form, to add claims, for an application for costs, for an application for further disclosure, an application to strike out the response for alleged failure to comply with the tribunal’s specific orders. These were supported by letters sent to the tribunal appearing at documents 127 -199. On 27 Feb 2025 at document 182 of the bundle the Claimant had submitted an application to add a complaint of pregnancy discrimination as a new claim. The Claimant had also sent an additional letter to the tribunal at 8.18am on the morning of the final hearing.[17]After hearing from the parties, the hearing was adjourned from 12.40 until 2.00pm.[18]After the adjournment the tribunal ruled that:[19]No further amendments to the claim form would be permitted. Although the Claimant, who is a litigant in person was granted leave to refer to matters in evidence she considered relevant to the issues, which would be treated as background.[20]Having heard the Claimant’s application and the Respondent’s submissions, the tribunal disposed of the Claimant’s applications as follows: 20.1. Application to amend to add a claim of direct discrimination (concerning a male tennis coach, Mr Hilaral Soma (Document 155 para 7) The Claimant alleges that Mr Soma was given access to 9 day priority booking as a back up coach. The Claimant alleges she was not given similar facility, having been informed by the Respondent that she would have to run a new session from 27 September 2022 as a pre-condition of being given the same 9 day priority booking facility. This constitutes a new allegation of direct discrimination. The Claimant alleges that this potential claim came to her attention after the Preliminary Hearing held on 4 October 2024. The Respondent submitted that new evidence would be required concerning different arrangements for back up coaching. The Tribunal accepts that the late application could disadvantage the Respondent and it would not be proportionate to grant the application. The application was refused. 20.2. Application to amend to add a claim of pregnancy discrimination. The Claimant submitted that she received a list and location of leavers from the Respondent on 10 February 2025. It was only then that the Claimant considered her engagement might not have been ended for alleged failure to complete a minimum number of hours, as contended by the Respondent. The Tribunal considers that the Claimant could have presented a claim of pregnancy discrimination in her claim form or made an amendment application at an earlier stage of the proceedings had she genuinely believed that was relevant to her treatment. The application has been presented well outside of the applicable time limit. The Tribunal considered it was too late now to bring the claim that would likely involve further evidence and potential cause postponement of the hearing. The application had been made too late and was dismissed. 20.3. Application to amend to add a claim of direct discrimination regarding a photoshoot. The Claimant submitted that she found out about a photoshoot that had taken place on or about April 2023 held at the Respondent’s premises during disclosure on 28 February 2025. The Claimant complained she had not been invited to it and that was an act of discrimination (Document 199E). The Tribunal considered that these circumstances had already been identified in the claim and to the extent relevant was as set out at paragraph 2e in the list of issues. The Tribunal refused to permit any extension of the claim accepting the submission of the Respondent that such an extension would involve including an out of time claim of direct discrimination, which would likely require further evidence from different witnesses. 20.4. The Claimant made an application to amend as set out at Paragraph 7 f of the list of issues to include: Did the email from F.Gouveia to S.Beeson sent on 11st April 2023 amount to detriment? i. Did the Claimant suffer harm or damage to her professional reputation as a result of this email? ii. Did this email contribute to or influence the decision-making process that led to the termination of the Claimant’s engagement on 14 June 2023? iii. Was the comment made with the intent to punish, deter, or retaliate against the Claimant for their involvement in the discrimination complaint? iv. Was F. Gouveia’s statement about the Claimant’s history of disputes with other staff members a retaliatory response to the Claimant making a complaint? The Tribunal permitted the amend at 7 f i, iii and iv as it appeared no new evidence was required to determine that matter. The Tribunal did not grant the application in respect of proposed amendment of 7 ii because the application was made late and would likely involve additional evidence. 20.5. The Claimant made an application for an award of costs alleging the Respondent had failed to comply with some of the Tribunal’s orders – 199AE. The Tribunal considered that costs can be considered at the end of the hearing, if appropriate. The Tribunal will by then have had an opportunity to consider the Claimant’s submission in its full context. 20.6. Strike out. The Claimant applied for the response to be struck out. The application for strike out of the Respondent’s response was dismissed. There has obviously been compliance with some of the tribunal’s orders and an order to strike out the response would not be appropriate. The Claimant submitted that she wished to provide a supplementary witness statement if all or any her applications were dismissed. The Tribunal has been provided with a witness statement comprising 28 pages from the Claimant. The Claimant will also have an opportunity to answer question in cross examination and provide any additional evidence as appropriate to the issues. The Tribunal did not grant permission to the Claimant to prepare and/or provide a further supplementary statement. The Claimant objected to the tribunal’s decision. The Claimant was reminded of the overriding objective. The hearing needed to begin as soon as possible or there would be a likelihood of it not being completed within the allocated time of three days. The hearing of the evidence began at 2.20pm. The Claimant affirmed and answered questions in cross examination. Following the order the list of issues was updated and is as set out below. The Issues 1. Were the discrimination and victimisation complaints made within the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010? The Tribunal will decide:a. Was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (plus early conciliation extension) of the act to which the complaint relates?b. If not, was there conduct extending over a period?c. If so, was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (plus early conciliation extension) of the end of that period?d. If not, were the claims made within a further period that the Tribunal thinks is just and equitable? In particular, the Tribunal will consider: i. Why were the complaints not made to the Tribunal in time? ii. In any event, is it just and equitable in all the circumstances to extend time? DIRECT SEX DISCRIMINATION (s13 EqA 2010) 2. Did the Respondent do the following: a. On 18 November 2021, duty manager Fabio Gouveia and Tim Glenn removing the Claimant from kids’ sessions, and retaining instead Alex Henderson, a male coach (who the Claimant says has the same tennis coaching qualification/role as the Claimant); b. By email dated 18 November 2021, Fabio Gouveia and Tin Glenn telling the Claimant that she would no longer be able to use priority tennis court 9-day advance booking and having to use 8-day advance booking for her selfemployed work, because she would no longer be engaged by the Respondent as a worker. i. The Claimant says that a male coach, Liam Kelleher, who was never engaged by the Respondent, was allowed access to the priority system of 9-day advance booking, as well as 3 months advance booking for his selfemployed work. No conditions were set to him that he won’t be able to book courts as there were for the Claimant. The Claimant says her male comparator L Kelleher was allowed to book courts 9 days in advance, as well as 3 months in advance in the period from November 2021-till dismissal of the claimant on 13 June 2023 while not being a worker at Respondent. c. From 27 September 2022 to 31 March 2023, Fabio Gouveia not advertising the Claimant’s Tuesday class other classes were advertised at the Respondent. i. The Claimant says that Fabio Gouveia didn’t advertise the Tuesday class like it did with Monday class which is run by a male coach at that time in the same setting, Alex Henderson. d. On 16 November 2022 Tim Glenn and Fabio Gouveia failing to pay the Claimant the full amount she was due in September and October 2022 without informing her in advance about a cut in pay. The Respondent agreed to backdate the payment. i. The Claimant says that the amount she wasn’t paid is 15 minutes before and after the session, for taking equipment out of the storage room and bringing it back, while male coach Alex Henderson in the same month continued to get paid extra half an hour for doing the same job. She says she was told the reason for it was because she does a different job right before and after the session. In the same circumstances the comparator coach also does a different job right before the employment, running a private session at 5pm every Monday, before his group session starts, however his pay for that period is not cut. Was any case reported that the Claimant didn’t take out or bring the equipment back to the storage room in order to cut her pay? Did male coach Alex Henderson run his private lesson at 5pm right before his employment session? If male coach was paid for that month fully (including extra half an hour) was it an act of sex discrimination?e. On 14 April 2023 Fabio Gouveia and Tim Glenn of the Respondent advertising only male tennis coach Liam Kelleher’s tennis lesson photos on their Company’s media, such as Instagram and Enable Leisure and Culture website. This was found after the claim was submitted to Employment Tribunal. i. The Claimant asks: Was it an act of sex discrimination inviting only a male coach for photoshoot and not publishing female coach tennis photos?f. On 31 March 2023, Fabio Gouveia: i. cancelling the Claimant’s kids’ Tuesday session with immediate effect; ii. Cutting the Claimant’s hours for the Respondent; iii. No longer allowing the Claimant to continue coaching for BPMA; iv. No longer allowing the Claimant to use the 9-day advance priority booking. a) The Claimant says Liam Kelleher was allowed to do this and to benefit from 3 month advanced allocated booking.g. On 6 April 2023, Fabio Gouveia preventing the Claimant access to the wellbeing team. 3. Was that less favourable treatment? a. The Claimant relies on the following comparators: i. Alex Henderson (whose session wasn’t cancelled at that time and who continues running a Monday class), continues to benefit from 9 day booking priority for his self-employment. ii. Male coach Liam Kelleher continues to book courts 9 days in advance, as well as 3 months in advance. Other coaches who benefit from 9 days advance booking are Richard Dhir and Hiralal Soma. 4. If so, was it because of the Claimant’s sex? 5. Did the Claimant do a protected act? 6. Did the Claimant do the following protected acts? a. On 20 and 21 September 2022, the Claimant complained to F. Gouveia about her pay as contrasted with male tennis coach Alex Henderson; b. On 6 April 2023, the Claimant sent an email to Fabio Gouveia saying that she is being discriminated against as a female in comparison to male tennis coaches. c. On 25 April 2023 the Claimant wrote to Samantha Williams alleging sex discrimination because she is female and male coaches are given priority by Fabio Gouveia. d. Raising an official grievance on 4 August 2023 about discrimination. 7. Did the Respondent subject the Claimant to the following treatment: a. Fabio Gouveia at the Respondent terminating the Claimant’s engagement as a worker at Battersea Park Millenium Arena site; b. On 11 April 2023, Fabio Gouveia stating in an email to Head of HR Steve Beeson where he described the Claimant as “this particular individual who has a bit of a track record with previous staff members and other coaches”. The Claimant says “this was spreading bad and unfounded gossips about [her], addressing me as a person of conflicts, what is completely unrelated topic to my discrimination complaint”. The Claimant alleges this was done because she did a protected act on 6 April 2023. The Claimant also raises the additional factual questions of: i. Whether she suffered harm or damage to her professional reputation as a result of this email; ii. Whether the comment was made with the intent to punish, deter, or retaliate against the Claimant for her involvement in the discrimination complaint; iii. Whether Mr. Gouveia’s statement about the Claimant’s history of disputes with other staff members was a retaliatory response to the Claimant making a complaint? c. On 14 April 2023, Fabio Gouveia and Tim Glenn not inviting the Claimant or publishing photos of her on the media so her sessions were not advertised; d. On 3 May 2023, a senior manager Samantha Williams saying that 8 day booking priority would work for the Claimant since she is the first person to book courts in the morning; e. Completely ignoring the Claimant’s grievance and not proceeding with the investigation. i. The Respondent’s position is that there was an initial delay due to staff changes but on more than one occasion the Respondent offered to meet with the Claimant to discuss the issues and find resolution but the offers were declined. f. Blocking access to work email on August 2023 so the Claimant couldn’t contact the Respondent and use information from her work email. 8. By doing so, did the Respondent subject the Claimant to a detriment? 9. If the Claimant was subjected to a detriment, was it because of the Claimant’s protected acts? REMEDY 10. In the event that any or all of her claims are well-founded, what sum, if any, should the Claimant be awarded for compensation and injury to feelings? The findings of fact
REMEDY
[21]After hearing the evidence of the witnesses and considering the documents presented to the Tribunal, we found the following facts.[22]Enable is a not-for-profit organisation working in partnership with councils, charities and other organisations to deliver health, leisure, community services and events. The organisation reinvests any profit from its activities to fund community projects. One part of the organisation provides tennis lessons and coaching for children and adult members of the local community. These are staffed by casual workers. The Claimant’s role within the organisation[23]The Claimant is a qualified tennis coach. The Respondent operates several sports sites. The Claimant began working as a casual tennis coach at the Respondent’s Battersea Park Millennium Arena (BPMA) from 3 September 2012 and worked in that capacity until January 2023.[24]The site facilities include a broad range of sports facilities, including 19 tennis courts.[25]The Claimant was engaged on a casual basis and under the terms of her contract the Respondent was not under an obligation to provide the Claimant with work, and she was not under an obligation to accept any offers of work.[26]Although the Claimant began working for the Respondent in 2012, important to the background to this claim is that for the whole time the Claimant worked as a casual coach for the Respondent, the Claimant derived her primary income from conducting a business on her own account, as a self-employed Tennis Coach. The Claimant primarily utilised the Respondent’s tennis courts and sports facilities at BPMA for the furtherance of her business.[27]During the two years immediately before her engagement ended the Claimant worked for the Respondent for about one hour a week. The Claimant did not carry out any work for the Respondent from the end of January 2023 until her contract was formally ended on 14 June 2023 by the Respondent issuing her with a P45. 9-day booking priority[28]The Respondent permits professional and licensed tennis coaches to use its sports facilities to carry out their own business of providing private tennis lessons. It is the Respondent’s standard policy that all tennis coaches are permitted to book tennis courts for the benefit of their business up to 8 days in advance.[29]Additionally, the Respondent allows coaches who also run courses or sessions on behalf of the Respondent, an additional one day of advance booking, so that they are permitted to book tennis courts up to 9 days ahead.[30]Having the facility of booking tennis courts 9 days ahead potentially confers an advantage to tennis coaches who, like the Claimant, also operate a private coaching business using the Respondent’s facilities.[31]While not strictly monitored, the Respondent’s policy of providing the 9-day booking priority was intended to be granted only to tennis coaches who provided regular weekly tennis coaching sessions for the benefit of the charity.[32]After the Claimant joined the Respondent as a casual coach in September 2012, she had worked for about one hour a day, on up to three days a week, until 2020. During 2020 the facilities closed several times, due to the Covid-19 pandemic.[33]By 2021, the Claimant’s only regular commitment to the Respondent was working for one hour a week as an assistant tennis coach, at a Monday ‘drop in’ tennis class run by a fellow coach Mr Alex Henderson. Mr Henderson had conceived and set up this course. The course was put on for children and was aimed at providing an opportunity for more advanced players to improve their tennis. As a result of this history, Mr Henderson was regarded by the Respondent managers, and by the Claimant, as the lead coach for this session.[34]Mr Henderson had invited the Claimant to help him carry out the session at a time when the number of attendees had increased, so that two coaches were needed. Subsequently the number of children attending the session reduced so that only one coach was necessary to run the session.[35]Working at this one-hour coaching session each Monday allowed the Claimant continued access to the 9-day booking priority, which she in turn used to support her private coaching business.[36]Another potential advantage to working for the Respondent as a casual tennis coach is that the Respondent renews the coaching licence of such workers at a cost to itself. The Claimant benefitted from this practice so that every year the Respondent renewed her coaching license.[37]The Tribunal found that the 9-day booking priority rule was not strictly observed or monitored by the Respondent during 2021-2023. The Claimant was able to book tennis courts 9 days in advance for her self-employed business even when she had not provided casual coaching services during a particular week. The same applied to other male coaches, who were permitted to use the facility even though they did not strictly qualify for this benefit under the Respondent’s policy. Change of Management at Battersea Park Millennium Arena and Gym (BPMA)[38]Mr Tim Glenn began working for the Respondent in February 2004. In November 2020 he was assigned the role of Operations Manager of the Respondent’s Battersea sports sites. These included the site at which the Claimant worked, BPMA. Mr Glenn sought to make improvements to the activities on offer by the Respondent.[39]In this new role, Mr Glenn eventually reviewed the profitability of the paid activities offered by the Respondent at the Battersea sites, including the tennis courts and tennis sessions held at BPMA. He sought to ensure that the paid activities offered at BPMA were profitable, since profits generated by paid activities support the charitable activities provided by the Respondent.[40]Accordingly, Mr Glenn eventually reviewed and monitored the level of profit being generated by all of the Respondent’s tennis sessions run at BPMA.[41]Mr Fabio Gouveia began working for the respondent in September 2011 as a Sports Assistant. He was appointed Duty Manager on promotion in June 2021 of the Battersea sites, including BPMA. Mr Gouveia was subsequently promoted to the post of Operations Manager in January 2023. Termination of the Claimant’s work at the Monday ‘drop in’ session[42]From 2021, when the BPMA reopened after the final Covid-19 shut down, the Claimant resumed her role as assistant coach on the Monday drop-in sessions.[43]The Claimant had originally been invited to assist Mr Henderson at a time when the numbers of children attending the course became too numerous for him to manage alone. By 2020 the situation had reversed and the numbers of children who attended the course had fallen below the level requiring two coaches.[44]Mr Glenn noticed early on in his appointment that this Monday ‘drop in’ session was routinely making a financial loss. He did not take immediate action to address the matter because of the Covid-19 crisis. The session was suspended during the Covid 19 lockdown but restarted in April 2021.[45]In November 2021 Mr Glenn monitored attendance and prepared a spreadsheet recording fees received and costs of coaching for the session which confirmed his initial observation, that the session was being run at a loss to the charity.[46]At this time, Mr Gouveia was the Duty Manager at BPMA, reporting to Mr Glenn. They agreed that the course should be run by one coach. Given the history of the course Mr Glenn considered the Claimant’s role as assistant coach should be ended. Mr Gouveia considered it an uncontroversial decision that the Claimant, who had been asked to help Mr Henderson when the course numbers justified it, should now be removed from that role when there was no longer a need for her services.[47]During the hearing, the Claimant denied the course was in fact loss making. The Tribunal was satisfied that Claimant was quite wrong about this. The documentary evidence and evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses clearly proved that the course had been running at a loss for some time.[48]Mr Glenn informed the Claimant of the decision by email on 18 November 2021 (213): ‘Hi Jenny, We are currently reviewing the tennis courses and sessions for 2022 and we feel from January 2022 onwards that we only need one tennis coach for the Monday Advanced drop-in tennis session. Unfortunately if you are no longer coaching for us then you wouldn’t qualify for the 9 day book ahead priority unless there are any other days you can do when we have courses/sessions.’[49]Like Mr Gouveia and Mr Glenn, the Claimant did not think that being dropped from the session was a controversial decision. Understandably, the Claimant did want to lose the facility of the 9-day priority booking. Therefore on 19 November 2021 (215) the Claimant emailed Mr Glenn and proposed a potential solution that might allow her to continue qualifying for priority booking: Hi Tim, Ok, as discussed with Fabio earlier today, I totally understand that you don’t have a budget for 2 coaches to keep on Mondays or until we have the sufficient amount of kids to cover the costs, not an issue. However, can I still stay on 9 days priority booking until you have a space for me if that’s ok? In the meantime, can I build my own group for 1 hour drill session as addition to what we have now (let’s say 6 kids X £10 each, 1 court and you pay me for 1h only (not 1.5h))? Some parents were enquiring before if I can do extra for kids as once a week is not enough. P.S. It will be really difficult to get a court with 8 days advance booking only considering the amount of coaches we currently have. Please let me know if that would be an option. Many thanks. Jenny[50]Mr Glenn replied to this enquiry by email dated 23 November: ‘Hi Jenny, Sorry for the delay in coming back to you. I like the thought about another session if you think we have the numbers wanting to do this weekly. What day/time did you have in mind? Probably want to avoid the tennis session on Mondays and the courses on Wednesdays. Let me speak to Fabio this week and we will come back to you ASAP. ‘(215)[51]The Tribunal heard from the Claimant about what the Respondent could and should have done in order to create this session or to help to make it a success, in response to her email. The Tribunal bear in mind that the Claimant was engaged as a casual worker. There was no mutuality of obligation in their relationship on which to base her wish or expectation that the Respondent would create work for her. Through Mr Glenn, the Respondent supported the Claimant’s idea for this proposed session, but having proposed it, the Claimant was being asked how she saw the session working. This evidenced that the onus was on the Claimant to develop and proceed with the idea (215). This was consistent with the nature of the working relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent.[52]During his review of the sessions and courses Mr Glenn became aware that there was at least one male self-employed coach, Mr Kelleher, who did not coach any sessions for the Respondent but had been using the 9 days advanced booking. Mr Glenn was given to understand Mr Kelleher had been allowed to do so because he helped the Respondent find replacement coaches when needed. At about this time the Respondent was proposing introducing new padel courses. Mr Kelleher also asked if he could continue using the 9 days advanced booking in exchange for agreeing to start coaching these new courses. Mr Glenn agreed to let him use the facility on the basis of this promise. The padel courses did not begin until over a year later and Mr Kelleher’s use of the 9-days book ahead priority was not withdrawn during that period.[53]Later on 18 November, the Claimant had second thoughts about the fairness of her being dropped from the session, possibly after Mr Henderson suggested to her that perhaps the managers believed she was receiving an unfair advantage from working at only one (Enable) session (214). The Claimant sent another email, dated 18 November, to Mr Glenn: ‘Hi Tim, I would like to know why you decide that I no longer can do the kids’ Monday class if the class is still going on? I don’t think it’s fair that I have to leave the group I’m coaching last 9 years and nobody even asked if Alex or I want to leave, even though we have same coaching qualification. I feel very disappointed and I don’t think I’m treated fairly. Kind regards Jenny’[54]The Tribunal accepted the evidence of Mr Glenn that he had not made any such suggestion to Mr Henderson and the sole reason the Claimant’s role was ended was the fact that the session was loss making. This is reflected in his reply to the Claimant: Hi Jenny, We have had discussions with Alex regarding the Monday night advanced tennis session and he feels due to the low numbers that he can manage this on his own and as far as | am aware he is the lead coach on this session. We have done some costings regarding the Monday night session and we consistently losing money on the session every week after we’ve paid both yourself and Alex for 1.5 hours which we can’t justify anymore. We can discuss the option of you being the back up coach for the Monday sessions should Alex be away as well as the Wednesday night courses and Saturday courses/sessions should one of Alex or Ferida be away (216).[55]The Claimant gave evidence that she had expected the Respondent to move forward with the idea or to find her another session to work at, but we repeat we the Tribunal was satisfied that the Claimant’s expectations of the Respondent were not supported by the terms of her contract or consistent with the nature of her working relationship.[56]Consistent with the way in which the 9-days booking priority had been operated at that time, the Tribunal find that the Respondent did not withdraw the facility from the Claimant during the ten or so months it took for her to begin the proposed new session.[57]The Claimant alleged that Mr Hiral Soma was permitted to enjoy the 9-day priority booking as a casual worker while working fewer hours than she had. The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Glenn that Mr Soma acted as a regular cover for several coaching sessions ran by the Respondent, when the lead coaches for those sessions were absent. Mr Soma was afforded the 9-day priority booking not only for covering these sessions, but also because he ran a regular and successful adult drop in coaching session for many years.[58]Mr Kelleher ran a 6-week children’s tennis coaching course (referred to as Teddy Tennis) for the Respondent. Mr Kelleher was permitted to book these course 3 months ahead because he had a separate corporate contract with the Respondent to run these courses.[59]The Claimant did not run the same or similar courses for the Respondent as Mr Kelleher and was not a standby coach in the same was as Mr Soma. The Tribunal was concluded that neither Mr Soma nor Mr Kelleher were appropriate comparators. Not advertising the Tuesday class[60]The Claimant eventually set up and began a new session offering one-hour tennis drill sessions for children for the Respondent from 27 September 2022, on Tuesday afternoons (242). From the outset, the session was not well attended, with between nil and four children attending each available session. By 23 January 2023 no one at all was attending them and the Claimant abandoned the course altogether, but without notifying the Respondent of her decision (273). Therefore, the course remained available to be booked on the Respondent’s system until May 2023.[61]The Claimant complains that the Tuesday class was not advertised and alleges that it should have been advertised and promoted by the Respondent. In an email confirming the sessions had been set up, dated 21 September 2022, the Claimant was invited to: ‘Do your best and let us know how we can support the session further (242)’.[62]The Claimant’s suggestion that the Respondent should have promoted the session was first made in a complaint sent to the respondent on 10 May 2023 (301-303).[63]The Tribunal did not accept the Claimant had any expectation that the Respondent would advertise or promote this session for her, because this suggestion was only made by her after the course had ended. We bear in mind, the Claimant did not reply to this email or make suggestions for support she might wish to have while the course was running.[64]As a way of explaining the low attendance numbers on the course, the Claimant suggested during her evidence that the Respondent’s booking system for lessons did not always work, so that as an administrative convenience the children on some occasions paid for a different class while attending her Tuesday class. This was not raised by the Claimant at the time. The Tribunal heard no evidence to support her suggestion that this had occurred.[65]The Claimant contended that other drop-in sessions were advertised while hers was not. The Tribunal found no evidence that the Claimant was treated differently. We found on the facts that the Claimant was treated the same as her male colleagues and her belief was not based on the facts. Sex discrimination in pay[66]When the Claimant set up the new Tuesday session, she confirmed with Mr Glenn that she would charge only one hour’s pay for the one-hour session (215).[67]The Claimant contended that while she had agreed to be paid one hour’s pay, the Respondent should not have agreed to this and she should have received pay for an extra thirty minutes, to set up the class and put away equipment.[68]The Tribunal found that the reason the Claimant was initially paid for one hour is because that is the amount she agreed to. About two weeks after the course began the Claimant asked to be paid for one and a half hours. The Claimant held private classes both immediately before and after the one-hour class. Therefore, the Respondent could not immediately understand how or why the Claimant could reasonably expect to be paid for an additional amount for setting up and tidying away a session that took place immediately before and after her private lessons. Nevertheless, the Respondent agreed to pay the additional amount to the Claimant, as requested (255-256). Photoshoot[69]The Respondent’s publicised its services and facilities on social media. The Respondent organised a photoshoot centrally covering multiple sites to refresh its social media images (249). Staff who happened to be attending the relevant facilities on the day were asked to be photographed posing as though they were members of the club using the facilities. The photoshoot did not involve promoting any drop-in sessions or identify specific members of staff who appeared in the photoshoot. The purpose of the photoshoot was to obtain stock images that could be used in promotions, portraying a busy and active club. The photoshoot was not arranged to promote specific drop-in sessions or specific tennis coaches as the Claimant alleges.[70]The Claimant claimed that she should have received an individual invitation to this photoshoot, and that she had been discriminated against by not receiving an invitation.[71]The Claimant also claimed that Mr Kelleher had been specifically invited by the Respondent to the photo shoot to promote his own course. Mr Kelleher appeared in some of the images, but he was not identified as a coach and there was no reference to any of his courses appeared. The Claimant tried to make much of a very small logo appearing on Mr Kelleher’s sports kit in one of the photographs as evidence of publicity either for him or his course (379). The Tribunal found there was absolutely no evidential basis to support the Claimant’s allegations. Casual workers data cleanse exercise/P 45[72]The Respondent routinely removes casual staff from its administrative systems, including payroll, when they have stopped working from the Respondent for a period. Casual staff who have not worked in any of their casual roles for several months will usually have their records closed (after HR has consulted with line managers). If appropriate, a leaver's notice will be issued to them, in accordance with its Employment Handbook Casual Staff Policy 4.10 (391).[73]This policy and practice is followed partly because there is an administrative costs to keeping casual staff on its systems. Where casual staff resume working for the Respondent, they are re-entered onto the Respondent’s systems.[74]The Claimant did not carry out any work as a coach for the Respondent after about 23 January 2023.[75]In June 2023, in response to a routine query from Mr Chris Lake of Human Resources concerning whether the Claimant was still carrying out work for the Respondent, Mr Glenn reported that she was not. This information was correct. As a result of this information the Claimant was removed from the Respondent’s systems and was sent a P45 in July 2023 (329). The Claimant alleges that Mr Gouveia terminated her engagement. The Tribunal find that this was not the case. The issue of the P45 was an administrative action by HR. Alleged protected act 20 and 21 September[76]There was an exchange of email correspondence between the Claimant and the Respondent on 20 and 21 September 2022 (246-247) in which the Claimant raised her concerns about her coaching licence, alleging Mr Gouveia had threatened to cancel her licence and the licence of another male coach as well as the 9-day priority booking.[77]The Claimant did not make any allegation of sex discrimination in this email. The Claimant was reminded by Mr Glenn that she had misinterpreted what had been said in respect of her self-employment and told her that she was being treated in the same was as her male colleagues in respect of the 9-day booking priority. Mr Glenn explained: ‘…With the 9 day book ahead access, we have spoken to Liam under similar conditions as yourself regarding the need to put on a course or weekly session for us/Enable to be able to keep the 9 days access and we will be reviewing this again towards the end of the year. Please remember that you haven’t coached sessions for us since November 2021 and we have still allowed you to keep the 9 days access until a session was set up so I don’t think we have been unfair to any of the coaches on this issue…’.[78]The Tribunal found the sending of this email did not constitute a protected act because it did not allege unlawful sex discrimination. Alleged Protected Act 6 April 2023[79]On 31 March 2023, Mr Gouveia wrote to the Claimant formally cancelling the Tuesday coaching session that she had started: ‘Hi Jenny, Hope you are well. Wanted to speak to you in person but haven’t seen you for a while so wanted to send you an email just to update you on a few things. We will be stopping the session on Tuesdays due to the low up take. With this, as you have been made aware in the past, you will keep your ability to book courts in advance but only for 8 days ahead instead of 9. We have removed the 9 day booking priority from any coach who currently isn’t doing a session for us or working with us. Any questions then please let me know. Hope you have a good easter and see you soon![80]In response, on 6 April 2023, the Claimant sent an email to Mr Gouveia alleging unlawful sex discrimination (271): ‘Hi Fabio, I really don’t understand why you allowed me to run the course initially if you believed it’s not suitable? What has changed in comparison when you allowed me to run it and now? With regards to 9 days policy, it’s unfair to keep me on 8 days while you allow a male coach to have his courts already booked out for his own business until July which is more than 9 days and are in the system already? Why you think his business is more important than mine and he can use this priority? I was removed from Monday’s class after a long commitment I did running it for 9 years, and never was allowed back, because you preferred a male coach for it without even consulting myself or Alex who wants to do the class. On Wednesday evening class during winter months you had 5 kids max in a group among 3 coaches and it was fine to run that way, however you are picking on my Tuesday class that you no longer need it, just because you don’t want me to have 9 days booking priority I suppose. Is it the only class you decided to cut? Perhaps yes. My pay was cut deliberately without even notifying me about new terms and then I had to chase it throughout different arguments and stress until I was fully paid. Other male coach had no stress because you allowed him to have 9 days booking priority and he even never did anything for the club, nor was on the payroll, however he continues using the booking privilege. It has also created a hostile atmosphere among myself and some other male coaches since I have to always compare them to my case. Since I continuously been treated unfairly on numerous occasions, I believe cutting my course and cutting my booking days is unfair to me, and I’m being discriminated because of my gender being a female coach. Our company suppose to promote equality, however I don’t feel being equally treated. I would like to know what is a formal grievance procedure at Enable, as well as could you please share contacts of wellbeing team since I had so much stress to go through over last one year? (271)[81]The Tribunal was satisfied that this letter included complaints of discrimination.[82]Mr Gouveia sought advice from the Respondent’s HR Manager, Mr Steve Beeson, and sent him an email: ‘ I was hoping that I could seek your advice with quite a serious matter that seems to be arising. I have a casual instructor (tennis coach) who has indirectly and directly at times made claims that they are being discriminated against due to their gender. These are very serious accusations that are being targeted towards Enable and myself so I would only want to proceed with caution. I have attached the email that this is referring too but it may be easier if we can arrange a short call or something to explain some context. For reference this is the first time she has mentioned this in writing but I have been told that similar comments have been made to others in person. Other questions I have are: Are casual staff able to access our wellbeing team? (I imagine this is the case but just wanted to double check) Also, where would people file a formal grievance as a casual staff? Any assistance on this matter would be greatly appreciated. I am majorly concerned as this particular individual has a bit of a track record with previous staff members and other coaches and an accusation such as the one she is implying is extremely upsetting. With all the hard work that we have all been undergoing this is the last thing anyone would want to hear….’ (286)[83]Mr Gouveia was taken aback by the Claimant’s allegations of sex discrimination made in reaction to the cancellation of the failed session. He considered her allegations to be baseless and gave evidence that he considered it appropriate to express his genuine concern to HR when asking for assistance. He had personally heard the Claimant complain about one member of the coaching team and was aware of her complaints about another. Alleged victimisation by Ms Samantha Williams[84]Mr Chris Lake is the respondent’s HR Business partner and leads the Respondent’s HR Team. Mr Beeson was the head of HR from 1 March 2022 and Ms Martina Vaklinova was appointed as the new Head of HR from July 2023. As a new appointee Ms Vaklinova was subject to a probationary period of 6 months.[85]Ms Samantha Williams was the Head of Leisure. On 25 April 2023, the Claimant wrote her a lengthy and detailed email covering her various complaints and putting particular emphasis on the loss of the 9 day priority booking (303-4).[86]Ms Williams replied on 3 May 2023 (302) answering the Claimant’s points and on 16 May 2023 further explaining that she had checked the records and confirmed the decision to remove the class had been made purely on the needs of the business. Ms Williams also carefully explained that to ensure there is a fair and consistent approach there would be a blanket rule imposed that the 9 day priority booking would only be available if the Claimant coaches an Enable session.[87]Accordingly, in or around early April 2023 some coaches had the 9-day bookahead removed. The Claimant along with others, including Mr Kelleher were affected by this decision (562 – 563). By this time the Claimant had stopped booking courts because of her pregnancy, and it appears that the cancellation of the 9-day book ahead had never been applied to her.[88]Ms Williams indicated that she did not expect the Claimant to experience difficulty booking courts under the 8-day facility because, she had been informed that the Claimant was generally the first to call and confirm her dates.[89]The Claimant considered this response to amount to an act of victimisation because Ms Williams did not agree with the Claimant’s assertion that she would be severely disadvantaged when making bookings for private clients if the 9-day facility was withdrawn.[90]The Claimant having declined an offer to meet Ms Williams informally to discuss her complaints, was advised that if she wished to raise a formal grievance, she could do so in line with the Respondent’s grievance policy (300).[91]The Claimant was pregnant by this time and had claimed in her email to Ms Williams that she had ceased coaching early because she was worried about treatment from Mr Gouveia. This was the first time that this had been mentioned. The Claimant denied during cross-examination that she sought to use her pregnancy in an untrue and manipulative way, given that she did not work with Mr Gouveia on a day-to-day basis. Certainly, by the time the Claimant informed the Respondent of her pregnancy she had not been working for several months. The Tribunal considered that the Claimant had no grounds on which to refer her pregnancy in this complaint given that she had not worked for the Respondent since January 2023.[92]The Claimant did not make a formal complaint when informed of her right to do so in May 2023.[93]The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Respondent that it pays a monthly fee for each active IT account it holds for staff and closure of unused accounts by the HR team is routine.[94]On 12 July 2023 the Claimant’s email account was closed during a routine closure of unused accounts (315, 319,320-321).[95]The Claimant sent the Respondent a formal grievance on 4 August 2023 only after she had received her P45 (337, 332-336). Ignoring the Claimant’s grievance[96]Dealing with the Claimant’s grievance was the responsibility of the then newly appointed Head of HR Ms Martina Vaklinova. Regrettably, Ms Vaklinova did not take any action to deal with the Claimant’s complaints and did not inform anyone else in the HR team about the fact that she had not dealt with the grievance. Ms Vaklinova’s appointment was terminated in November 2023 after having failed her probationary period (366). The Respondent’s CEO, Mr Mitchell raised the issue of the matter not being dealt with Mr Lake who was told, at the time that it was being dealt with. Subsequently it appeared that no action had been taken by which time the Claimant had started these proceedings.[97]Early conciliation started on 1 September and ended on 13 October 2023. The claim form was presented on 31 October 2023. The Applicable Law[98]The time limit for discrimination complaints is three months, subject to any extensions of time afforded by the early conciliation procedure (sections 140A and 140B ERA), starting with the date of the act to which the complaint relates and allowing for any extension of.[99]Where a claim has been presented to the tribunal after the three-month deadline a tribunal has a broad discretion to extend time under section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 within “such other period as the employment tribunal thinks just and equitable.”[100]In the case of Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link [2003] IRLR 434, per Auld LJ, said at paragraphs 23 to 24 that the discretion to extend time in discrimination claims is a broad one and the Appeal Court should only interfere with the finding of the Tribunal if it “erred in principle or was otherwise plainly wrong” in its decision.[101]Where there is a series of distinct acts of alleged discrimination, the time limit begins to run when the act is completed. If there is continuing discrimination, the time limit only begins to run when the last act in the series is completed. In the case of Barclays Bank plc v Kapur and ors 1991 ICR 208, HL it was ruled that where an employer operates a discriminatory regime, rule, practice or principle, then such a practice will amount to an act extending over a period. However, where there is no such regime, rule, practice or principle in operation, an act that affects an employee will not be treated as continuing, even though that act has ramifications which extend over a period of time. DIRECT DISCRIMINATION (SEX) (s13 EqA 2010)[102]Section 13(1) Equality Act 2010 Act provides: ‘A person(a) (A) discriminates against another(b) (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.’[103]In this case the protected characteristics are sex (s.11 EqA).[104]The comparison required is clarified in s.23(1) as “On a comparison of cases for the purposes of section 13.. there must be no material difference between the circumstances relating to each case”.[105]The act of direct discrimination, s.13(1) EqA, is made unlawful by s.39(2)(d) EqA, “An employer (A) must not discriminate against an employee of A's (B)—(d) by subjecting B to any other detriment”.[106]The purpose of the victimisation provisions of the Equality Act is to give protection to workers who have been penalised for making a complaint of discrimination. (Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police v Khan [2001] IRLR 830.)[107]Section 27(1) Equality Act 2010 Act provides: ‘a person(a) (A) victimises another person(b) (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’.[108]The following are ‘protected acts’ for the purpose of S.27(1): bringing proceedings under the EqA — S.27(2)(a) giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under the EqA — S.27(2)(b) doing any other thing for the purposes of or in connection with the EqA — S.27(2)(c), and making an allegation (whether or not express) that A or another person has contravened the EqA — S.27(2)(d).[109]The tribunal is concerned with the conduct of the employer and whether the elements of the definition are fulfilled.[110]For liability to be established the tribunal must therefore find that the employee did a protected act, that the impugned conduct (whether by act or omission) amounted to subjecting the employee to a detriment and that the conduct occurred because employee to the protected act.[111]It is well established that, if it is not inherently obvious from the nature of the conduct, the question of whether the contact was because of a protected act must be determined by the tribunal making findings about the mental processes of the individual concerned, and, in particular to what their motivation was. The protected act need not provide the sole or principal motivation so long as it was a material contributing influence on the conduct.[112]It is also well established that conduct will amount to a detriment if the complainant reasonably perceives it to be such, and that to pass this test it does not have to be the case that the conduct have some identifiable hard financial impact. However, an unjustified sense of grievance cannot amount to a detriment.[113]Engagement as a casual worker falls within extended definition of ‘employment’ under S.83(2) of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) that employment means: (a) employment under a contract of employment, a contract of apprenticeship or a contract personally to do work;[114]In relation to claims under the EqA, the burden is on the claimant to prove that the alleged discriminatory treatment actually happened, and that the respondent was responsible. BURDEN OF PROOF[115]s.136 EqA sets out burden of proof provisions: 136 Burden of proof(1) This section applies to any proceedings relating to a contravention of this Act.(2) If there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention occurred.(3) But subsection (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision. The Tribunal’s deliberations and conclusions[116]After the hearing, the parties provided written submissions which the Tribunal took into consideration when arriving at its decision.[117]Although the Tribunal made findings on the time issues, we decided that we would determine each claim being pursued, regardless of our findings on whether they were brought out of time.[118]We bear in mind that we heard evidence and submissions on all the claims advanced. More importantly, unlawful discrimination on any grounds raise serious issues for the Claimant who alleges to have been subjected to such treatment, and for those members of the Respondent’s managers and staff who are alleged to have engaged in such treatment.[119]The Tribunal considered the parties were entitled to know what conclusions the Tribunal had reached on the evidence presented. Therefore these reasons proceed to address the discrimination claims even where the Tribunal has concluded that they were presented outside of the applicable time limits.[120]The Claimant’s argues that her complaints constitute a continuing act of discrimination and were brought within the time limit. The Claimant relies on the allegation that the respondent blocked access to work emails in August 2023 as the last act on which she relies. The Claimant adds that all acts of sex discrimination and/or victimisation were executed by the same managers Mr Fabio Gouveia and Mr Tim Glenn since November 2021.[121]The Respondent contends that all of the acts of alleged discrimination or alleged victimisation that occurred before 2 June 2023 are out of time.[122]The Tribunal finds that the allegation of victimisation by Mr Goveia’s email of 11 April 2023, having been presented by way of amendment on 19 December 2024, was presented out of time. However, this claim crystalised following disclosure and we therefore find that it is just and equitable to extend time for this claim.[123]The Tribunal also finds that the allegations of detriments at 7a, terminating her engagement as worker on June 14 2023; 7e, grievance being ignored in August 2023; and 7f , email account being closed in August 2023 were presented in time.[124]We considered the Claimant’s submissions that all of the allegations, commencing with the cancellation of her work in the Monday session in November 2021 are continuing acts and are in time. The Tribunal does not accept the Claimant’s submissions in this regard. We find that the cancellation of the Claimant’s role in the Monday session was a one off and distinct act. The Claimant was removed from the session because the course at that time was not profitable. Similarly, the Tribunal finds that informing the Claimant about the effect on her access to the 9-day advanced booking facility at that time was also a distinct act.[125]The Tribunal accepts the submissions made by the Respondent and finds the allegations the Claimant makes are spread out over a number of years, and they are not connected.[126]Having considered all of the circumstances the Tribunal concludes that, with the exception of the allegations presented in time referred to above, all of the remaining claims of sex discrimination and victimisation were presented outside of the applicable time limits. The Claimant gave no evidence concerning why she did not present all of her claims within the time limit. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal concludes that is it not just and equitable in all the circumstances to extend time. DIRECT SEX DISCRIMINATION (s13 EqA 2010)[127](2 a) The Tribunal refers to its findings of fact as set out above. The Tribunal found that the Claimant was removed from the Monday children’s session because she was the assistant coach and not the lead coach. Mr Henderson had started the course and the Claimant had been taken on his recommendation when needed to help with increased numbers. The Tribunal finds that the Claimant was treated less favourably than Mr Henderson but concluded that the reason was not related to sex.[128](2 b) The Claimant was informed that she would no longer be able to use 9-day advance booking, because she would no longer be carrying our work for the Respondent. The Tribunal finds that being informed or reminded about the Respondent’s rules or policies in this regard was not related to sex and did not constitute an act of discrimination.[129]The Tribunal found as fact that male coaches were provided with the same information. There is no evidence of a motive related to sex or evidence to support the Claimant’s allegation of discriminatory treatment. The Tribunal dismissed this claim as having been presented out of time. The Tribunal would have dismissed the claim on its merits because the Claimant failed to show there was a difference in treatment between her and male colleagues in the application of this policy. The Claimant’s claim of sex discrimination therefore fails.[130](b i.) The Claimant claims Mr Liam Kelleher, who was never engaged by the Respondent, was allowed access to the priority system of 9-day advance booking, as well as 3 months advance booking for his self-employed work.[131]The Tribunal found that the circumstances between the Claimant and Mr Kelleher were not comparable. Mr Kelleher carried out a corporate booking for the Teddy Tennis sessions which was quite separate from the one-off sessions. The Tribunal also found that the Respondent removed the 9-day book ahead in the review of this policy in or about April 2023 from Mr Kelleher as well as potentially from the Claimant, so that there was no difference in treatment (562 – 563). The Claimant’s claim of sex discrimination is dismissed because it is out of time. The Tribunal would have dismissed the claim on its merits because the Claimant failed to establish that Mr Kelleher was a comparator or that there was a difference in treatment.[132](c i) The Claimant claims that from 27 September 2022 to 31 March 2023, Mr Gouveia did not advertise her Tuesday class and alleged that other one off classes were advertised at the Respondent. The Tribunal found the Claimant’s course was treated in the same way as other one-off courses, such as appearing on the screen in reception. The Claimant alleges that other male coaches had some form of additional advertising. This simply did not take place. The Claimant did not establish any difference of treatment between the treatment of her one off class and the class of Mr Henderson who was a comparator for this purpose. We also found that the Claimant did not raise any purported concerns about this at the time, which lead to Tribunal to doubt the veracity of her allegation. Therefore, while the claim fails on the time point it would have been dismissed because the allegation was not supported by the evidence. The Claimant’s claim of sex discrimination therefore fails.[133](d.) The Tribunal considered the allegation that on 16 November 2022 Mr Glenn and Mr Gouveia failed to pay the Claimant the full amount she was due in September and October 2022, without informing her in advance about a cut in pay. The Tribunal accepted the Respondent’s evidence that the Claimant having agreed to be paid one hour for the session, there was a genuine query concerning her request for additional pay. The Tribunal find the Respondent dealt with the query very promptly (within about 2 days) and the Respondent agreed to pay her for the 1.5 hours and gave her back pay (within 2 weeks). The Tribunal find no evidence of treatment related to sex. The Claimant’s claim was dismissed as having been out of time but the Tribunal would have dismissed because the (prima facie) facts do not support an allegation of sex discrimination.[134](e). The Tribunal considered the Claimant’s allegation that on 14 April 2023 Mr Gouveia and Mr Glenn advertised only male tennis coach Liam Kelleher’s tennis lesson photos on their Company’s media, such as Instagram and Enable Leisure and Culture website. This allegation was made after the claim was submitted to Employment Tribunal.[135]The Tribunal was satisfied that the Respondent did not market individual coaches, except by displaying their details on the screen located in reception. The allegation that individual coaches were advertised on social media was wholly without foundation. In respect of the photoshoot, the Respondent had arranged to take stock photographs at which one of the coaches happened to feature. However, unless he was known personally Mr Kelleher was not identifiable. The Tribunal noted that even a partial view of the Claimant was caught on camera. The Tribunal found the Respondent did advertise individual classes or coaches on any of its social media platforms. Drop-in sessions were displayed on the screen or on the Respondent’s website. The Tribunal found that the Respondent did into invite male coaches for the photoshoot or not publishing female coach tennis photos. Staff who were available could attend. The Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s claim of sex discrimination because the facts do not support her allegation.[136](f.) The Claimant claims that on 31 March 2023, Mr Gouveia, cancelled the Claimant’s kids’ Tuesday session with immediate effect; cut the Claimant’s hours for the Respondent; no longer allowed the Claimant to continue coaching for BPMA and no longer allowing the Claimant to use the 9-day advance priority booking.[137]The Tribunal found that the reason for the cancellation of the Tuesday session was that it was no longer financially viable. The Tribunal found the Claimant had abandoned the session in January 2023 without informing the Respondent, even before Mr Gouveia’s email. The Claimant’s coaching licence was unaffected. There was no evidential basis for the Claimant’s allegation that she was no longer allowed by the Respondent to continue coaching. The Tribunal also find that the Claimant did not have the 9-day priority withdrawn until April 2023, by which time it was not applied to her. The Claimant had by then decided to stop coaching because of her pregnancy. We therefore found the rule was not implemented in her case. (e a) The Claimant in support of her allegations stated that Mr Kelleher was allowed to benefit from 3 month advanced booking. As we have set out above, the circumstances are not comparable, and the reasons for any difference in treatment are not related to sex.[138]The allegations are dismissed as having been presented out of time. If they were not, the Tribunal would have dismissed them on the ground that the there was no evidential basis on which to support these allegations of sex discrimination. The Claimant’s claim of sex discrimination therefore fails.[139](g.) The Claimant claims that on 6 April 2023, Mr Gouveia preventing the Claimant access to the well-being team. The Claimant was a casual worker and was informed that the service was only available to employees. It is clear that the reason for the treatment is not related to sex. The Claimant’s claim fails on the time point, but would have failed on its merits. The claim of sex discrimination fails.[140](3.a.1.ii.) The Tribunal has considered the Claimant’s allegations that she was subjected to less favourable treatment than male comparators. The Tribunal found no evidence to support these allegations. The Tribunal conclude that the Claimant was not subjected to less favourable treatment.[141]The Tribunal considered the totality of the allegations of sex discrimination made by the Claimant. The Tribunal conclude that all of the allegations made by the Claimant were based on unfounded allegations and the Claimant did not establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment in respect of any allegation. Accordingly, the Tribunal find that the burden of proof did not shift to the Respondent in respect of any of the allegations.[142](5,6) The Tribunal concluded that the email about the Claimant’s pay on 20 and 21 September 2022 (247) was a protected act. She was alleging a difference in pay because of her sex. The Tribunal concludes that the email of 6 April 2023 (272) was not a protected act; the Claimant did not make allegations of unfavourable treatment. The Tribunal concludes that the email dated was 25 April 2023 was a protected act (303-5).[143](7). The Tribunal considered whether the Respondent subjected the Claimant to the alleged detrimental treatment. We refer to our findings of fact. The Claimant’s engagement was terminated some months after she stopped working for the Respondent on the Tuesday course. After being accused of sex discrimination, Mr Gouveia who had witnessed one episode personally of the claimant complaining about others, wished to emphasise to his manager his need to advice and support and was very worried on his own account about the serious accusations made by the Claimant. The Tribunal accepted Mr Gouveia’s evidence about this. We also accepted the evidence of Mr Lake that it made no difference to the Claimant’s treatment or the treatment of her grievance, which we accepted. While we can understand the Claimant’s objection to the wording of Mr Gouveia’s email we find her allegation that the comment was made with the intent to punish, deter, or retaliate against the her for her involvement in the discrimination complaint was an unfounded belief. The Tribunal considered Ms Williams response to the Claimant. We find Ms Williams answered the Claimant’s points in her email correctly and appropriately. The Tribunal finds this email did not amount to detrimental treatment.[144]The Tribunal also found as fact that blocking access to the Claimant’s work email on August 2023 was routine and not detrimental treatment or an act of victimisation.[145]The Tribunal found that the Claimant’s grievance was ignored by the new HR manager. We consider that was a regrettable, but we found no evidence to support the Claimant’s claim that the grievance was ignored because the Claimant had done a protected act.[146]To summarise, the claim that the Respondent dismissed the Claimant because she was a woman is not upheld. The Tribunal find that the Claimant was not subjected to any of the detrimental treatment she alleged. The claims of sex discrimination and victimisation are not well-founded and are dismissed.[147]The Claimant’s claims are not upheld and are dismissed. Approved by: