Miss S Khan MBE v Lucas Film Ltd and others: 3301557/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 3301557/2023

Between

Ms Sadi KhanClaimant

(1) Lucas Film Limited (2) Blue Stockings (UK) Limited (3) The Walt Disney Company LimitedRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto

In person for claimant

Ms K Taunton (instructed by counsel) for respondent

Date 10 July 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]The correct name of the second respondent is Blue Stockings (UK) Limited, and the title of the proceeding is amended accordingly.

[2]The claimant’s claims against the first respondent Lucas Film Limited and the third respondent The Walt Disney Company Limited are struck out pursuant to rule 37 (1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of procedure, the claims have no reasonable prospect of success.

REASONS

[1]The respondents contend that the claimant has not articulated a coherent legal basis for a claim against Lucas Film Limited or The Walt Disney Company Limited.

[2]The parties agree that the claimant had a contract with the Blue Stockings (UK) Limited: it is in issue whether the claimant was an employee or a worker. The claimant contended that the first and third respondents should be parties in the proceedings because, in the case of the first (J) Page 1 of 3 respondent it is a holding company which owns the second respondent: and in the case of the third respondent the claimant answered to its employees (referred to by the claimant as the Disney bosses) and in her work was required to implement the third respondent’s rules on health and safety matters. The claimant in her submissions made reference to the first and third respondents being “agents” or “principals” for Blue Stockings Limited but did not set out a basis which permits a potential finding that there was between Blue Stockings Limited and the first or third respondents, in respect of the claimant’s employment, a basis for concluding an agent/principal relationship.

[3]For the purposes of the claims of automatically unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal, the correct respondent would be the claimant’s employer i.e. the entity with whom the claimant had a contract of employment. For the purposes of the claims under sections 44(1) and 47B(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA), the claimant may bring a claim against the ‘employer’ for whom she is a ‘worker’. That entity is Blue Stockings Limited.

[4]For the purposes of the direct discrimination, victimisation and harassment claims under section 39 Equality Act 2010 (EqA), the claimant may claim against her ‘employer’ (i.e. Blue Stockings Limited). Insofar as the claimant makes complaints regarding the conduct of individuals, liability for their actions can only attach to Blue Stockings Limited insofar as the individual was an employee or agent of Blue Stockings Limited.

[5]For the purposes of the equal pay claim, the respondent is Blue Stockings Limited.

[6]The Claim Form named the first respondent as ‘Lucas Film Ltd’. The correct name of the first respondent is ‘Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC’, a company incorporated in the USA which has no UK address. Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC did not employ or engage the claimant in any capacity. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC who does not submit the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The claimant applies to pursue claims against a UKbased company called ‘LFL Productions Limited’. The claimant does not articulate a legal basis for liability on the part of LFL Productions Limited (which is not named on her engagement documents, nor did it employ or engage any of the individuals who the claimant identifies in her complaints) under the legislation under which she brings her claims.

[7]The claimant alleges that employees of the third respondent took or failed to take actions about which she complains of in these proceedings. The claimant however does not explain a basis for liability in respect of the third respondent.

[8]The claimant’s complaints against the first respondent (or LFL Productions Limited) and third respondent have no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant does not set out a basis on which she is entitled to (J) Page 2 of 3 make a claim against these respondents based on the legislation upon which she relies in this case.

[1]The respondent is a UK-based production company which was incorporated as a special purpose vehicle for the production of a television series codenamed “Paradox”.

[2]The respondent engaged the claimant between 20 June 2022 an her dismissal with immediate effect on 28 November 2022.

[3]The claimant commenced employment tribunal proceedings against a number of parties on 30 January 2023. After responses were entered there were a number of preliminary hearings as a result of which the respondents were finally reduced to the Blue Stockings (UK) Limited. The claimant’s complaints were distilled into a schedule of alleged detriments and a schedule of alleged protected acts set out as appendices to the record of a preliminary hearing on 18 January 2024. The contents of these documents formed the matrices around which the claimant’s case was developed.

[4]The claimant gave evidence in support of her own case and also relied on the evidence set out in statements from John Hookway, John Caboche, Murry Poole and Mark Poole. The evidence of Mark Poole was contentious between the parties. Mark Poole was expected to attend as a witness support the claimant’s case and to be available for questioning by the respondent. Mark Poole did not attend and so we could only consider his untested but contentious witness statement, in respect of this evidence we have heeded the respondent’s caution and bear in mind that the evidence is contentious and has not been tested by questioning.

[5]The respondent relied on the evidence of Zainab Darwish, Candice campos, Damian Anderson, Laura Reece, Sam Wright, Sion Dettra, Tony Davis, Adam Teeuw and Victoria Cadiou, all of whom attended to give live evidence either in person at the employment tribunal or by video.

[6]The parties also provided us with a large volume of documentation which we have considered when requested to do so.

[7]From these various sources we have come to the following findings of fact. We have also set out in the schedule at the end of this judgment the conclusions that we reached in respect of the detriments and protected disclosures relied on by the claimant.

[8]Having decided on a career change, the Claimant attended the National Film and Television School (NFTS) to study Production Management. On leaving the NFTS the Claimant secured employment with Disney Productions as a Health and Safety Co-Ordinator from January 2022 on a Disney production, Snow White (code name “Merry”). This was the Claimant’s first role in Health and Safety in the film and television industry.

[9]In around May of 2022, Mr Sion Dettra and Mr Mark Poole made a recommendation to Mr Tony Davis for the Claimant to work on Paradox as the Production Safety Co-Ordinator and the Claimant joined from June of 2022.

[10]The Claimant’s initial job title was Production Safety Co-Ordinator.

[11]In her evidence the Claimant explains that she had discussed with Mr Mark Poole and Mr Dettra that she was to be the Head of Health and Safety for Paradox. This bit of evidence was the subject of controversy because it is unusual to have the structure which was created. Normally, or more usually, the Head of Department in the film and television industry would be a Health and Safety Advisor; that is a person who is qualified in Technical Health and Safety and one of the people that worked with them would be a Co-Ordinator who would normally be paid at a lower rate than the Health and Safety Advisor.

[12]It is also the case that ‘Head of Department’ is usually a reference to a position in the hierarchy and is not in itself a formal job title. Ordinarily, in a Health and Safety Department the Head of Department position is held by a Health and Safety Advisor, that would be a Supervisor or a Lead Safety Advisor. The role of a Co-Ordinator in the Production Health and Safety Department would normally be to carry out office related duties.

[13]The evidence that we heard from the Respondent was that in the film and television industry it is not uncommon for there not to be formal job descriptions for roles and in the Claimant’s case there was not one provided to her. Describing the Claimant’s role, Mr Anderson said it included collating paperwork, accident reporting, booking in and coordinating for training courses, as well as dealing with financial matters and tracking the Department’s budget and spending.

[14]In this case there is a peculiarity created because the Claimant was given an account of her role by Mr Mark Poole. Mark Poole provided the Tribunal with a Witness Statement but did not attend to give evidence. Mr Mark Poole also assisted the Respondent in the Claimant’s internal Appeal and gave an account of the Claimant’s role which is different to the account which was given to the Claimant and set out in his statement for the Tribunal.

[15]When the Claimant first started working for the Respondent there was, in the Health and Safety Department, a Ms Rafferty. She was a Health and Safety Specialist and she was working as the Lead Safety Advisor on Paradox and she remained working on a part time basis from the start of the Claimant’s employment. There was also a Mr Baker. Mr Baker had had some contact with Paradox prior to the Claimant joining but it was not until July 2022 that he was engaged in Paradox and commenced working until his employment came to an end in the Autumn.

[16]The Claimant says that during her recruitment negotiations with Mr Davis she made a number of proposals relating to a NEBOSH course. NEBOSH is an acronym for a qualification in Health and Safety. The Claimant’s proposal was for her receive paid time off for her to complete the course. Mr Davis was unwilling to provide the Claimant with paid time off to do the course and after some negotiation the Claimant agreed to start work with the Respondent on a weekly rate of £1,875. That was a significant increase on what she had been receiving in her previous role with Merry. It was agreed that the Claimant would be taking unpaid time off to complete the NEBOSH course. In respect of the NEBOSH course, the Claimant seeks to make a complaint that she was discriminated against in the way that she was treated by the Respondent in relation to that when compared with other trades who are engaged by the Respondent.

[17]It is important to understand Mr Davis’ reasoning. What Mr Davis said to the Claimant was that he considered that the NEBOSH qualification is a long term investment for the Claimant and because the Claimant was being engaged in a role where she was not required to provide technical health and safety advice, the qualification was just a bonus. The qualification was not a requirement for her to perform the role of a Production Health and Safety Co-Ordinator, or indeed as a Health and Safety Department Manager; the role title which the Claimant had at the point her employment came to an end.

[18]The difference between the Claimant’s position and that of ‘Welders and Slingers’ who the Claimant referred to, is that in respect of Welders and Slingers in order for them to be able to do their work for the Respondent it is necessary for them to have had the appropriate training and to possess the qualifications to meet safety standards. The Tribunal are satisfied that that is an important distinction between the Claimant’s position and that of Welders and Slingers and one which renders any comparison between her role and that of Welders and Slingers as being one where there is a material difference between the Claimant’s role and the Welders and Slingers.

[19]From 1 August 2022, the Claimant’s position changed to that of Health and Safety Department Manager. This was something that was agreed between the Claimant and Mr Mark Poole. The evidence of Mr Anderson and Mr Teeuw was that the job title Health and Safety Department Manager was not one that they were familiar with and was not one that was replicated in any other Lucas Film commissioned production. The structure they were familiar with was that of the Production Safety Department run by a technically qualified and experienced Health and Safety Advisor or Safety Advisors and a Co-Ordinator being a person in a relatively junior position whose role would be to assist with administrative aspects of the department.

[20]The change in title caused Mr Davis and Mr Anderson to be unsure of what was intended. It is important to remember that the Claimant did not have the technical qualifications to be a Safety Advisor and therefore they did not understand who or what the Claimant would be managing because she was not a person who was a Safety Advisor. The result of this was that there was confusion among the Producers and within the Safety Team about the Claimant’s responsibilities as a Health and Safety Department Manager, with the Claimant operating as though she was the Head of Department and it would appear no one was telling her otherwise.

[21]In his Witness Statement made for these proceedings, Mr Mark Poole stated that he made the Claimant Head of Health and Safety. In paragraph 5 of his Witness Statement for the Tribunal he says, “Sadi was appointed as the Safety Department Head, she was responsible for producing and managing the safety budget as well as resources (both financial and labour), producing reports to the production and ensuring compliance by the department with regards to health and safety, with all safety advisors reporting to her. The work completed by Sadi was exceptional but due to this diligence did highlight performance and compliance issues.”

[22]Mr Mark Poole, as I have already said, did give some evidence to the Claimant’s Appeal and in that he spoke to Ms Cadiou and said, “In the traditional structure the role of Manager has been assumed by the Lead Advisor, the challenges is most of the Safety Advisors who take this role do not have the experience of document management. While office based they are also removed from their safety role covering the production. The CoOrdinator/Manager dependant on structure manages the office side of the safety, accident management, training, collection collation of risk assessments, tracking budget, specialist activities such as face-fit testing etc.”

[23]That is a description of the Claimant’s role which is significantly different from the one that the Claimant was putting forward and which appears to have been suggested by Mr Mark Poole in his Witness Statement to the Tribunal.

[24]Mr Mark Poole also told Ms Cadiou during her consideration of the Claimant in determining the Appeal, that he did not think the change in title was a promotion and he suggested that the Claimant had in fact approached him to change her title because she was taking on more responsibilities in Ms Rafferty’s absence. He also made the comment that the Claimant was “‘obsessed with title” and that there was little difference between her Co-Ordinator role and her role as Department Manager but as Department Manager she was responsible for the budget.

[25]To the extent that there was confusion, there certainly was confusion which created problems for the Claimant and the Respondent. The fault for that, it seems to the Tribunal, can be placed directly at the door of Mr Mark Poole because he appeared to be telling the Claimant one thing and that things was not the same thing that was being told to Production.

[26]Mr Anderson had not been consulted about the title so he did not know what the responsibilities would be. The Claimant’s evidence was that she told Mr Anderson that she did not want to take the title of Head of Department because it did not feel inclusive and she asked if it would be okay for her to change the title to Health and Safety Department Manager.

[27]The problems that emerged centred around the relationship between the Claimant and the Health and Safety Advisor Mr Richard Baker. Over the entire period of Mr Baker’s employment and the Claimant’s employment, the Claimant was expressing complaints about Mr Baker’s performance. The Claimant’s view was that Mr Baker was under performing or failing to carry out his role in a competent manner. The Claimant pointed out that the effects of his poor performance was that this produced additional work for her and other members of the Health and Safety Team. Mr Baker, on the other hand, considered that the Claimant’s manner in carrying out her role amounted to bullying and harassment. He complained of bullying and harassment to Mr Anderson at one point.

[28]It is also the case that at times complaints were made by other members of the Paradox Team about the Claimant’s communication style.

[29]It seems to the Tribunal that a significant complicating aspect of this relationship was the lack of definition and clarity of the scope of the Claimant’s role, particularly when her job title changed. It seems to the Tribunal that what the Claimant describes as an unwillingness on the part of Mr Baker to do as she instructed him to do, may have been because he had a different perception of their respective roles.

[30]The Claimant has produced Further and Better Particulars and an Appendix which sets out a lengthy list of alleged detriments. There is also a second Appendix which sets out a series of alleged protected acts and protected disclosures. The Respondent has taken a pragmatic approach to the contention that the Claimant made a series of protected disclosures. Whilst not conceding protected disclosures where none are manifested in the evidence, the Respondent adopted the approach that the Claimant’s role involved dealing with issues of Health and Safety, that was the nature of her role and that in numerous meetings with other departments and in meetings with Producers she did raise issues of Health and Safety.

[31]In respect of the various incidents, whilst the Respondent may accept that there were qualifying disclosures made which amount to protected disclosures for the purpose of Section 43A, what the Respondent takes issue with is whether the detriments, to the extent that detriments were established, the Respondent does not accept that the Claimant’s long list of alleged detriments in fact necessarily contain detriments, but to the extent that they are established, the Respondent’s position is to challenge any suggestion that such detriment was because the Claimant made any protected disclosure.

[32]In this case, in our view, it is quite a problematic issue because what the Claimant has done it appears to us is to take the interactions which form part of her regular day to day work and in the context of Employment Tribunal proceedings, tried to fashion those into protected disclosures giving rise to detriment because of the Claimant having made protected

[33]The Respondent’s closing submissions give a good illustration of part of the problem that is being created by the way that the Claimant’s case has been put. We refer to paragraphs 63 and 64 and would seek to adopt the analysis which is set out by Counsel in respect of the way that the Claimant has approached this case and use that as illustrative of a problematic feature of this case.63. A consistent theme of C’s pleaded detriments is that she raised protected disclosures about Health & Safety issues on the production and was allegedly ignored and/or no action was taken by members of the production team. As initially pleaded in the FBPs, several of the alleged PDs had no associated detriment at all. In an apparent attempt to fit her claim into the rubric of a whistleblowing detriment claim, during the early procedural phases of this case C reformulated several of the alleged PDs set out in her FBPs into individual allegations of detrimental treatment in Appendix 1 (i.e. her list of detriments under the various causes of action she pursues).

64. One example of this is Alleged Detriment 2 [162]. C contends that in her weekly catch up with Mr Davis on 20 July 2022 (i.e. a few days after Mr Baker came on board full time), she raised concerns and made protected disclosures regarding the Construction department’s carpenters using saws without the correct PPE, fire inductions and fire safety, Mr Baker’s alleged refusal to carry out C’s requests of monitoring safety checks on the ground, there being no updated signed risk assessments in stage and workshops, and that COSHH protocols had not been communicated to departments as she had requested.

[34]Many of the complaints of alleged detriment include allegations structured in the way that has been highlighted by the Respondent. The Claimant says she raised concerns but the concerns are ignored. In many instances it is not clearly identified as a protected disclosure. In many instances she contends that no action was taken by the Respondent or her concerns were ignored. In some of those instances the Claimant fails then to go on to illustrate what could or perhaps should have been done.

[35]It is also clear from the evidence that some of the complaints that the Claimant makes where she is saying that she was ignored, or that no action was taken that in fact action was taken but her real complaint is that Mr Anderson or Mr Teeuw or whomever, did something differently to the way that she perhaps thought it ought to have been done.

[36]We were provided with a large set of documents and what these documents do is present a large body of day to day communications. There are emails, letters, text messages, contracts and agreements. We have also got a number of transcripts of covert recordings made by the Claimant. Taking account of the large number of covert recordings, it is significant that we found little assistance from them and did not consider that they significantly supported the Claimant’s case. Rather, they appeared to show that the Claimant’s interactions with her colleagues as recorded, were largely quite ordinary. Obviously they were unique to the individuals concerned but revealing what appeared to be appropriate and normal exchanges in the main. The only abnormality being the fact that the Claimant was so lacking in trust of her colleagues that she felt the need to make the recordings in the first place.

[37]The Claimant’s relationship with Mr Baker was not successful. She was critical of his performance and over time the Producers too became concerned about his performance. By about September of 2022, Mr Anderson is reflecting in emails that Mr Baker’s time on Paradox may be coming to an end.

[38]In this case Mr Anderson is the focus of much criticism by the Claimant. However, a perusal of his communications with the Claimant shows what was apparently a professional and supportive approach. Mr Anderson did, however, have concerns about the Claimant and reflects this in his evidence by his response to Mr Baker’s initial indication of his intention to resign as a result of the way that Mr Baker thought that he was being treated by the Claimant. We know that Mr Anderson raised this concern with HR. However, Mr Baker did not pursue matters and so HR never progressed anything in respect of Mr Baker’s complaint and the Claimant.

[39]There were other communications going on in the background which at the time the Claimant would not have known about, but as a result of disclosure in the proceedings, communications which were not in the sight of the Claimant have come to light. They show that behind his professional and supportive appearance, Mr Anderson did have concerns about the Claimant and he had interactions with others, including HR and other colleagues on the production. There came a time when Mr Anderson himself brought to the Claimant’s attention the fact that complaints had been made by the colleagues on Paradox. Mr Anderson attempted to counsel the Claimant in respect of her tone in communications with colleagues but these comments were not well received by the Claimant.

[40]Mr Anderson’s concerns about the Claimant persisted into the final period of the Claimant’s employment. We note that while in his evidence Mr Anderson said that he did not raise the question of the Claimant’s tone with the Claimant after 6 September because he had no more complaints, a perusal of the documents shows that he did in fact continue to raise concerns about the Claimant’s communications to HR after that date.

[41]On 12 September, the Claimant and Mr Dettra went on a walk around at the Shinfield Studios. The Claimant says this led to Mr Dettra witnessing unsafe practices and then raising concerns of Mr Anderson and Mr Teeuw. That in turn, the Claimant says, led to Mr Anderson and Mr Teeuw ignoring the Claimant’s opinion on COSHH protocols and then on the following day, 13 September, Mr Teeuw was dismissive of the Claimant during a Safety Meeting. At that Safety Meeting a list of faults, concerns and outstanding Health and Safety works was produced and considered. During that meeting Mr Teeuw stated in reference to a number of matters raised that these are ‘easy fixes’.

[42]The Tribunal consider that the account given by the Respondent in respect of this passage is more likely to be correct than that given by the Claimant because the explanation given by the Claimant was saying ‘easy fixes’ fit more comfortably with the Respondent’s explanation that it does with the Claimant’s rationalisation of these events.

[43]What the Claimant says is that in saying these are ‘easy fixes’ what Mr Teeuw was doing was being dismissive of the issues that she was raising, while on the other hand what Mr Teeuw says he was doing was that he was just expressing how simple it would be to correct matters and indicating that he would be allocating resources to correct them.

[44]It is evident from the evidence that we have heard that the Health and Safety Department was not working as it should be over the period from about July 2022, right up until the Health and Safety Executive Inspection on 3 October 2022. The Health and Safety Executive Inspection was conducted by Mr Caboche. That inspection resulted in two Improvement Notices and one Prohibition Notice. It was, in our view, to be the catalyst for change in respect of the Health and Safety Department.

[45]We note that there was a Production Safety Meeting on 4 October and during that meeting it appears to have been concluded that the structure of the department was wrong. The Tribunal’s view is that in stating that the structure of the department was wrong, there was not intended any criticism of the Claimant. The Claimant, however, does perceive it as criticism of her and we understand that because she saw herself as Head of the Department and thus having an overall responsibility. However, we consider that was a fair analysis of what was being expressed was indeed about the structure; who did what and who was in charge. It could be looked at as though it were reference to an organogram that had an important feature missing.

[46]When the Claimant’s job title was changed she remained on the same pay. The Claimant subsequently asked for a pay rise for Mr Murry Poole and then sometime later again on the appointment of Mr Stormont she sought an increase in pay for herself.

[47]In respect of pay, the Claimant was told by Mr Anderson that she should record on a timesheet the extra hours that she was working and that she would be compensated for overtime working. There does not appear to be any indication that the Claimant did so.

[48]The Tribunal were provided an explanation by the Respondent as to how salaries were arrived at. This involved a process of negotiation with any particular individual and that those negotiations took place within the context where there was a rate for particular types of roles, albeit within a range. The peculiarity of this case is that the Claimant’s rate of pay of £1,875 was so much higher than the going rate for the Safety CoOrdinator role, that it exceeded the top of the range for such roles.

[49]Following the Health and Safety Executive Inspection, the Producers decided to address the issue of the dysfunctional nature of the Health and Safety Department and it was sought to address the issue of the structure of the Department. The solution involved recruiting a Mr Jay Bond. Mr Bond was a man with many years of experience and much respected as a Health and Safety Advisor within the film and television industry.

[50]Mr Anderson had been interested in recruiting Mr Bond at an earlier stage, however, at that time Mr Bond was not available to take on a role at Paradox. In recruiting Mr Bond what the Respondent was seeking to do was create a structure of the Health and Safety Department that more closely reflected the industry norm, with an experienced Safety Advisor at the Head of the Department. They were not doing this with any intention to cause detriment to the Claimant or as a slight to the Claimant but in order to address the shortcomings and dysfunctional nature of the Health and Safety Department.

[51]In her Witness Statement the Claimant records the arrival of Mr Bond and her reaction to it in the following way, “169. On 10 or 11 October 2022 when I drove Mr Dettra to Shinfield I had a conversation with Mr Dettra, and he informed me that Jay Bond was joining the production, and that he was not coming in to take over the department but was coming in to work side by side. Mr Dettra made it clear to me that Jay Bond was going to manage the safety side and I was to manage the running of the department and administrative side. This felt like a demotion, and I felt that this was unfair, as I hadn’t done anything wrong.”

[52]There is some contention between the parties as to the chronology of certain events. In particular, whether the Claimant had a discussion with Mr Bond where she raised her concerns about his appointment, whether it happened before he joined or after he joined. The exact timing point aside, the Tribunal accept that there was some discussion between the Claimant and Mr Bond in the course of which the Claimant expressed her concerns. What the Claimant says in her Witness Statement is that: “171. On 12 October 2022, prior to a budget meeting with Production on 12 October 2022 I called Jay Bond to clarify his understanding of his position. During that conversation I explained to him that I had been told by Disney that they (sic) would be working side by side. Mr Jay Bond told me that he was to be Head of Department. I told Mr Bond about I was being unfairly penalized and had I done nothing wrong as a Health and Safety Department Manager. I told Mr Bond I found this unfair and that he had to appreciate that as a woman of colour I felt discriminated against.”

[53]There is a dispute between the Claimant and Mr Anderson about what happened at the Production Meeting on 12 October 2022. However, it is accepted that there were raised voices on both sides and Mr Davis describes the meeting as one where both the Claimant and Mr Anderson had raised their voices and that they put their positions forcefully.

[54]At about this time, the Claimant was clearly developing a concern about her own position. We note that a week or so before 12 October 2022 the Claimant had been in contact with Sam Wright who is in HR and asked if it would be possible to meet with her off the record. It took Ms Wright a week or so to respond to the Claimant; she provided an explanation of being busy and we note that not all that time was her working days.

[55]When she did respond to the Claimant she offered to have a catch up meeting with the Claimant but explained she could not commit to the conversation being off the record as she did not know the context. The Claimant persisted in saying that she wanted to have a chat with Ms Wright notwithstanding Ms Wright’s statement about the off the record nature of any discussion. After explaining that she would be on leave for a period of time, Ms Wright told the Claimant that she could always approach Ms Darwish, or if she wanted to speak to Ms Wright it would have to wait until she returned from leave. At that time the Claimant expressed the desire to continue her discussion with Ms Wright and the position was left that the two would speak when Ms Wright returned from leave but in the meantime Ms Darwish was available for the Claimant to speak to if she changed her mind about that.

[56]Sadly, what happened is that after the period of time that Ms Wright had taken leave, the Claimant did not contact Ms Wright and did not seek to follow up or enquire with the Claimant whether she wished to follow up her initial contact.

[57]A week later on 19 October, Mr Bond made a complaint against the Claimant. In that complaint he referred to comments made by Joe Halford and Kurt Bullivant. In his complaint Mr Bond stated, “I am concerned that 1, I am working alongside someone using highly offensive racial language and 2, that my name is being brought up in racially abusive conversations with my colleagues and who knows how many other people.”

[58]The Tribunal notes that Mr Bond makes no reference to the conversation that he had with the Claimant in which she expressed her concerns to him.

[59]Looking at the complaints made by Mr Bond, the Tribunal is able to understand why the reported comments, especially the comment referring to him as “a fucking white man” would have been concerning to Mr Bond.

[60]There was then an investigation carried out by Ms Darwish that involved her speaking to Mr Halford and Mr Bullivant. She made a note of what was said. (p596) Mr Halford said that he received a call from the Claimant to say that Production would have been shut down if it wasn’t for her and that she all of a sudden started talking about ‘white males’. Mr Halford said that he usually just listens but this time he said that ‘Jay’ is there because of his experience. The Claimant is reported as having said to Mr Halford “it was racist to bring Jay in.” Mr Halford said to the Claimant that he felt that was an unfair comment to make. The Claimant is reported to have said to Mr Halford, “I’m an Asian female and they are pushing me out with a white male”. The Claimant also said to Mr Halford, “If I were to take this further they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on”.

[61]The note of the conversation with Mr Bullivant is longer but it contains the following passage, “KB described this call as a venting session for SK describing how she was really annoyed and not impressed that a ‘white man’ had been brought in above her, on more money. SK apparently said, “I’m the boss, he’s been brought in on more money than me, I haven’t received more money since being made a manager.” SK described how she felt Damian had ‘gone behind her back’ to hire Jay. KB said that SK described people of white background as, “you f*ing lot” and said she’s “had a few battles with white guys before”.”

[62]The decision was made to invite the Claimant to a Disciplinary Investigation. However, the Claimant was told that she was being invited to a meeting to discuss some feedback that had been received in relation to the Production Safety Department. The scope of the discussion that took place on 2 November covers a wide range of areas about the department.

[63]It also deals with the complaint which had been made. To the extent that it does that, the Claimant stated that she had been raising concerns and no one was listening to her and that Mr Baker does not want to answer to the Claimant because she is a woman of colour or because he does not want to answer to her. She referred to there being some unconscious bias there. The Claimant said that there was some discrimination; she said that referencing the pay issue. She stated that Mr Anderson did not give her a pay rise but a white man received a pay rise and a woman of colour had not. Referring to Mr Bond the Claimant said, “Jay is Head of Department. That was agreed. After HSE, I was penalised for doing a good job. Don’t want to go into this… Jay came in straight after HSE, I was told it was to … I felt it was me, that I’d done everything and then he was brought in.” At one point Mrs Campos asked the Claimant, “So no one explained that Jay Bond was above you.” The Claimant’s response to that was, “I asked Jay this. When I was going into a meeting and that Sion said we worked side by side. Jay said he was told by Damian and Tony that he was Head of Department. I told Jay that I found that quite offensive, that I’ve performed and kept everything right on my side, paperwork saved the day. Bringing an English guy above me feels uncomfortable. I said that to Jay.” The Claimant was asked about the alleged comment that she had made, namely “a fucking white man brought in to manage me”, she responded saying, “No, that hasn’t been said. I said, I feel uncomfortable that a white man was coming in above me, feels uncomfortable.” “Feel like I have had a white person above me, a white man above me and I a woman of colour. That’s what I have said.” Mrs Campos then said to the Claimant, “Do you see how toxic it is to say that a white man has been brought in above me, when he’s Head of Department?” At the end of the meeting the Claimant was told that if she felt she had been discriminated against, harassed or bullied, it is important that she raises that.

[64]On the Record of the meeting, there is no indication of the Claimant being asked, in respect of what was said at that meeting, whether she was seeking to make a complaint that required looking into.

[65]On 4 November 2022, there was a Safety Meeting. Prior to this meeting, however, Mr Bond had been asked to consider how he saw the structure of the Department. The document that was created by Mr Bond and shared with the other Producers omitted entirely any reference to the Claimant. The Production Safety Co-Ordinator, a role that the Claimant might be considered to potentially occupy in any new structure, has ‘TBC’ beside it. A note against the role of Construction Co-Ordinator, not a role that the Claimant might be expected to fill, included the words, “this person would take the place of Sadi”.

[66]In her evidence to the Tribunal, Mrs Campos said that the meeting was not to dismiss the dismissal of the Claimant. However, there clearly was a link made between the fact that there was a pending disciplinary hearing for the Claimant and in absence of the Claimant on the document discussed around the new structure for the Safety Department. Mrs Campos stated that she did not know why the Claimant was missing, that “…she was trying to put together a new team and that Mr Baker was leaving / resigning. That this was all happening all at once, that the Claimant was having HR issues and that we were told that HR were going to have conversations and discuss next steps.” In her Witness Statement prepared for these proceedings, Mrs Campos had been slightly clearer. She had said, “I note that Miss Khan wasn’t mentioned in this email thread. (a reference to pages 650 – 651) “As I suspect it was known at this stage that there was going to be disciplinary proceedings against Ms Khan and her dismissal was a potential outcome, we then agreed that we would set up a meeting to discuss the potential team structure further.”

[67]The conclusion of the Tribunal is that notwithstanding any disciplinary action, the Respondent’s view of the future of the department did not include the Claimant in any guise.

[68]The Claimant was invited to a Disciplinary Hearing on 24 November 2022. The Disciplinary Hearing was conducted by Mrs Reece. Mrs Reece concluded that the Claimant was guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed the Claimant. The decision letter set out the reasons given by Mrs Reece for dismissing the Claimant. The Claimant appealed the decision to dismiss her and the Appeal was not upheld.

[69]We have gone through the Schedule and all the detriments listed by the Claimant and considered whether the Claimant was subjected to any detriment because she made a protected disclosure, or whether the Claimant was dismissed because of making a protected disclosure.

[70]In respect of the various issues raised, we have not been able to conclude that the Claimant was subjected to any detriment because she made a protected disclosure. It was not because of the Claimant making protected disclosures that resulted in action being taken about which she complains. The Claimant was performing her role which was a role that involved making what can be construed as protected disclosures in respect of Health and Safety as part of her day to day work. Nearly all of the Claimant’s complaints related to day to day acts or omissions which form part of her role and while there may have been conclusions which the Claimant disagreed with, we have not been able to conclude that the Claimant was subjected to detriment because she made protected

[71]The schedule at the end of this judgment set out our conclusions on the alleged detriments.

[72]The claimant and the respondent have provided us with written submissions which have been very helpful. We have taken them into account and take into account the legal framework as usefully set out by the respondent’s counsel.

[73]An employer must not discriminate against an employee by dismissing her or subjecting her to any other detriment. An employer discriminates against an employee if because of her race or her sex they treat the employee less favourably than they treat or would treat others.1 Race includes colour, nationality ethnic or national origins.2 Where the employee seeks to compare his treatment with that of another employee there must be no material difference between the circumstances relating to each case.3

[74]If there are facts from which the employment tribunal could decide, in the absence of any other explanation that the employer contravened the provision concerned the employment tribunal must hold that the contravention occurred.4 However, this does not apply if the employer shows that it did not contravene the provision.5

[75]A person(a) (A) harasses another

(b) (B) if A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and 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.6 In deciding whether conduct has that effect the tribunal must take into account (a) the perception of B; (b) the other circumstances of the case; (c)whether it is 1 Section 13 (1) Equality Act 2010 (EA) 2 Section 9 (1) EA 3 Section 23 (1) EA 4 Section 136 (2) EA 5 Section 136 (3) EA 6 Section 26 (1) EA reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.7 The relevant protected characteristics include race and sex.

[76]We have considered the claim of direct discrimination and harassment. We have not been able to find in favour of the Claimant in respect of those.

[77]The list of detriments at Appendix 1 identifies those instances of alleged discriminatory acts. Insofar as there are any instances of detriment made out, we do not consider that the Claimant has shown that there is evidence from which we could conclude that her sex or race played a part in any act or omission by the Respondent. It is significant in our view that each and every reference to her race or sex, comes from the Claimant; except where she is being quoted by others in the context of reporting what she has said to another in an email.

[78]In respect of the various alleged incidences of detriment, the claim is largely bereft of comparators and where the Claimant has been able to identify comparators, for example in respect of the NEBOSH course or in respect of a pay rise, the circumstances of these comparators are materially different to those of the Claimant.

[79]What the Claimant says is that there has been an unconscious bias against her because of race of sex. However, she has completely failed to set out the facts from which we are able to conclude there has been a bias of an unconscious nature, or otherwise. The reality of this case is that there is an assertion that there was bias by the Claimant and little more.

[80]Having considered all the evidence put before us the conclusion of the Tribunal is that the Claimant’s complaints of direct discrimination are not well founded and should be dismissed; in respect of sex and race.

[81]For what are essentially the same reasons, we do not consider that the Claimant has shown that there has been any unwanted conduct that was related to her race or sex. In those circumstances we do not consider that the Claimant’s complaints about conduct that she says was harassment can succeed.

[82]In any event, in relation to harassment the conclusion of the Tribunal is that there are no instances of harassment related to race or sex. By that I mean, ignoring the label of a protected act, we are not satisfied that the Claimant is able to identify any incidences of harassment when one considers the nature of the requirements of Section 26 (4) of the Equality Act 2010.

[83]The claim of victimisation in our view is different.

[84]Section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 provides that a person(a) (A) victimises another person

(b) (B) if A subjects B to a detriment because B does a 7 Section 26 (4) EA protected act or A believes that B has done or may do a protected act. A protected act includes making an allegation, whether or not express, that A or another person has contravened the Equality Act 2010. Giving false evidence or information or making a false allegation is not protected if the evidence or information is given or the allegation is made in bad faith.

[85]What we understand that to mean is that the allegation of discrimination does not have to be correct, it can be wrong; the question is whether or not it is made in bad faith in those circumstances.

[86]We have carefully considered the Respondent’s position in relation to victimisation and we note the reference to the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan and also particularly to the Sikh club case of Woods v Hassan Limited which has a number of features which are instructive when considering and analysing the circumstances of this case.

[87]We note that the Respondent admits that the protected acts in Appendix 2, paragraphs 2 – 4 and 8 – 10, the protected acts at 8 -10 are that which we consider to have been the cause of the Claimant’s detriment of having been dismissed at the Disciplinary Hearing and having the Appeal dismissed, both of which we consider to be actionable of detriments.

[88]The Respondent contends that the Claimant was not subjected to detriment because of making a protected disclosure. The Respondent says that Mrs Reece formed the view that the Claimant had discriminated against Jay Bond by her comments about his sex and race and that she did not consider the comments to be a neutral description used for the purposes of raising a legitimate allegation of discrimination against her.

[89]The Respondent further contends that even if we were to conclude that in making those comments the Claimant did do a protected act, it is not for us as a Tribunal to impute our objective assessment of the meaning of the Claimant’s comment into the subjective reason for Mrs Reece’s decision. In this respect of the case of Woods relied upon by the respondent.

[90]However, the Tribunal would seek to distinguish the case of Woods from the circumstances of this case.

[91]We consider that in this case the Respondent seized on the Claimant’s admitted use of certain words as the reason for dismissing her. The Dismissal Letter states that, “During the disciplinary meeting, you confirmed that you had referred to the Head of Department (HOD) Jay Bond, as ‘the white man’ brought in above you, which made you feel uncomfortable. You stated you felt discriminated against due to your race and gender to the Unit Medic as they “bring in a white guy above me, I haven’t done anything fucking wrong”. You also stated that you felt this was a private and confidential conversation with the Unit Medic where you felt “extremely upset, humiliated and in shock”. In the disciplinary meeting you stated, “the way in which this conversation has been represented to management has been distorted and taken out of context. The conversation was about me and my feelings of discrimination against my race and gender.”

[92]In explaining the dismissal of the Claimant Mrs Reece states that the Claimant made “a comment based on race and gender which I deemed to be inappropriate and discriminatory”.

[93]The conclusion of the Tribunal is that a fair assessment of what the Claimant stated could not have resulted in such a conclusion or led to such a draconian penalty as dismissal. Rather, we consider that the Claimant’s statements were in fact an excuse to dismiss the Claimant in circumstances where the decision to dismiss the Claimant had been predetermined by some of the Claimant’s Managers and her complaints about genuine concerns, expressed in good faith were manipulated to provide a reason to dismiss her.

[94]The Tribunal consider that position expressed by Mrs Reece was unsustainable when she stated that while the Claimant had made a complaint that was apparently a complaint of discrimination, that was not a matter for her to consider. She stated that, “My assumption is and what I have seen at Disney, is that they robustly investigate any allegation of that kind, I had absolute faith HR would investigate and there would be a process going on separately to me.”

[95]Mrs Reece’s evidence was to the effect that she thought that the Claimant’s allegations were being investigated separately but she made no efforts to determine whether that was in fact the case. The fact that she states this and yet goes on to make a decision to dismiss the Claimant without establishing whether her complaints, which in her version of events were being investigated elsewhere, in our view leads us to support a conclusion that impugns the integrity of her process. Would it really have been appropriate to dismiss the Claimant if in fact there had been an investigation that found there was discrimination against her and her complaints were justified?

[96]A further reason to question Mrs Reece’s approach arises from the fact that when asked whether it was reasonable on the assumption that the Claimant believed her complaints to be true, for the Claimant to make such a complaint, i.e. that a white man had been brought in above her, Mrs Reece stated that the Claimant could properly make such a complaint but that she needed to make it through the proper channels and in the first instance to Jay Bond who was Head of Department, or if she felt unable to do that to have a conversation with her Line Manager in that situation, to have a conversation with Mr Davis or Mr Anderson, or contact the anonymous reporting line, or contact HR.

[97]However, the Dismissal Letter recognises that the Claimant did what Mrs Reece in her evidence to us stated as one of the things that the Claimant should have done. When she states that the Claimant confirmed that she had made similar comments directly to Jay Bond about him being a white man brought in above her. The fact that the Claimant did what she should have done, according to Mrs Reece, was used against her to justify her dismissal.

[98]The conclusion of the Tribunal is that the reason why the Claimant was dismissed is because she made the complaint about the appointment of Jay Bond as Head of Department above her and that she expressed this as discriminatory on the grounds of her sex and race, by referring to him as a white man brought in above her. We reject the contention that it was in any respect related to the manner in which she made the complaints or that there was a subjective reason which was held by Mrs Reece was not because the Claimant had made a protected act.

[99]We also find that the Claimant’s claim of wrongful dismissal should succeed.

[100]Clause 5.2 of the Standard Terms and Conditions of Claimant’s contract provides that the Respondent would be entitled to terminate her engagement without notice in the event of a material violation of the Respondent’s policies and procedures, including the Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct provides that the Respondent prohibits harassment on any basis prohibited by UK law and that offenders would be subject to disciplinary action not excluding termination. The Respondent also operated a Prohibition of Harassment Policy in similar terms. Paragraph 6.4 of that policy provides that disciplinary action in cases where reasonable evidence is found of harassment many include dismissal for gross misconduct.

[101]In our view, the Claimant’s admitted comments did not amount to her carrying out harassment of Mr Bond within the Respondent’s Policy. The Claimant, in the comments that she made the Claimant was complaining about the way that she was treated. The articulation of her complaint of necessity required that Mr Bond was referred to. The manner in which the Claimant expressed herself to Mr Bond was not the subject of any criticism by Mr Bond. Mr Bond referred to second hand reports of comments made by Mr Halford and Mr Bullivant. The Tribunal reject the contention that Mr Bond was referred to by the Claimant as “a fucking white man”. It is accepted that the Claimant was complaining about being replaced by a white man, or as on another occasion she said, “an Englishman” and that person happened to be Mr Bond.

[102]This is not harassment of Mr Bond in all the circumstances.

[103]In her Disciplinary Hearing statement the Claimant explained the circumstances in which she made the comment to Mr Bullivant. “I left the meeting in shock and was very upset. While extremely upset, humiliated, emotional and in shock I visited the set Medic on a confidential basis where I stated in a private conversation that I felt I was being discriminated against as they were “bringing in a white guy above me. I haven’t done anything fucking wrong”. I stated I was the only woman of colour in the whole Production, I haven’t done anything wrong, I had just worked tirelessly to keep this production safe.”

[104]In her Witness Statement the Claimant had stated that, “I was in shock and completely humiliated when I left the room. I was crying and highly emotional. I went to visit the set Medic on a confidential basis. When I reached the Medic in a private conversation I told Mr Bullivant that I was being discriminated against, that I had done nothing wrong and that someone was being brought in above me. I made factual observations based on my perception that have been interpreted in a way that was taken out of context to promote a sinister intent.”

[105]Taking those descriptions which in our view align with the admissions that the Claimant made during the course of the disciplinary process. We are not satisfied that the Respondent has been able to show that the Claimant was guilty of conduct which would have entitled them to summarily dismiss the Claimant for breach of the Respondent’s Harassment Policy.

[106]Finally, the Claimant makes a claim about equal pay. She makes that claim based on the contention that she did like work to Mr Bond.

[107]Section 65(1) EA provides that A’s work is equal to that of B if it is like B’s work. Section 65

(2) provides that A’s work is like B’s work if (a) A’s work and B’s work are the same or broadly similar and (b) such differences as there are between their work are not of practical importance in relation to the terms of their work.

[108]We can address that quite shortly. The Claimant did not do like work to Mr Bond. There may well have been a difference in pay between Mr Bond and the Claimant but that was because they did different work. The Claimant was not engaged in the type of work that Mr Bond did. The duties of a Health and Safety Department Manager were different from those of a Senior Health and Safety Manager, like Mr Bond.

[109]Even if we were to take the Claimant’s most favourable description of her own role, it is clear to us that her role was primarily concerned with administrative management, whereas Mr Bond’s role was one where he was hired and required to perform duties of a technical nature that required him to have technical expertise and to exercise the expertise that he had gained in Health and Safety.

[110]The difference in the type of work done is reflected in the material difference between the skills and knowledge required for the two roles. Mr Bond used his technical expertise, the claimant in her role did not have the need to use any of that technical expertise, indeed she could not have because she did not have it.

[111]The Claimant’s complaint about equal pay is not well founded and is also dismissed. Schedule Detriment 1: SK denied This alleged complaint of sex and race paid holiday to do discrimination is not made out. The claimant NEBOSH course. entered into negotiations before starting her employment with the respondent and agreed to take on the role after having been informed that the respondent would not pay for the claimant to do the NEBOSH. The reason for this was because the claimant’s role did not require her to have the technical qualification. The claimant’s comparison with welders and slingers is not a like for like comparison because the sliders and welders needed technical qualifications to perform their roles where the claimant did not. Detriment 2: SK raised It was, after all, an inherent aspect of the claimant’s concerns relating to job that she would be identifying points around Disney standards health & safety compliance on an ongoing basis. with MP and TD. Ignored The claimant alleges that Mr Davis deliberately and no action taken by TD. failed to act upon the claimant’s concerns. Health & Safety is an ongoing process, the issues raised by the claimant were the type of issues that the claimant raised with Mr Davis were of the type which he thought might arise. The Tribunal is not satisfied that it has been shown that Mr Davis failed to act. There is no evidence that Mr Davis failed to do anything that he should have done or when it should have been done. Detriment 3: SK not given The claimant’s job title changed to “Health & Safety pay increase on changing Department Manager”, with effect from 1 August position from Production 2022. The title of Health & Safety Department Coordinator to Production Manager was not one which Mr Anderson or Mr Manager. Teeuw were familiar at the time, because it did not exist on any other Lucasfilm commissioned production. This led to confusion among the producers and within the Safety team about what the claimant’s responsibilities were. It was not clear that the claimant had been promoted so that a pay increase might be expected to go along with it. Mr Mark Poole said on thing to the claimant and something different to the production. The claimant was already on a comparatively high rate of pay. In mid-July, Mr Anderson asked the claimant whether a pay rise had been discussed with Mark Poole. The claimant told him she was not asking for a pay rise and was happy with her rate. When the claimant discussed pay with Mr Anderson it arose not from the change on title or promotion but because she and Murray Poole had been taking on additional work and thus working excessive hours. The claimant was not treated less favourably than a hypothetical comparator would have been. The “reason why” Mr Anderson did not increase the claimant’s rate was that(1) the claimant was already on a comparatively high rate for the role she was performing and

(2) the claimant had reassured Mr Anderson that she was not particularly concerned about her rate. Detriment 4: SK raised See detriment 10 serious concerns regarding RB’s insubordinate behaviour negligent attitudes towards monitoring H&S on the ground and neglecting his basic duties as Safety Advisor. SK contends she was ignored when raised concerns – no action taken against RB causing stress and work overload. Detriment 5: SK raised There is no evidence that the claimant was written concerns to DA, subjected to the detriment alleged here. MP. DA’s response to email sounded supportive but lip service was being paid to her concerns. Detriment 6: LE received LE obtained a risk assessment to provide to a support for plaster’s risk insurance loss adjuster. This was not a detriment to assessment, yet SK had the claimant and was not related to her sex or race, raised this as early as July or that she had made a protected disclosure. 2022 at weekly safety meetings. SK as not given support, requests were ignored, no action taken from start – overloading SK with work. Detriment 7: SK raised The evidence produced at the hearing did not show issues after walkaround that the claimant was subjected to a detriment as with DA, MP alleged here. and TD. No action taken against RB for neglecting duties and Construction Dept to complete requested work. SK ignored and given no support. Detriment 8: No action or The Tribunal concluded that the comment about the support given after raising claimant being difficult may have related to the safety concerns at the situation between the claimant and Richard Baker safety meeting, SK was and not referring to the claimant as difficult. There referred to as “diﬃcult” and is no evidence that the claimant was being subjected to malicious subjected to malicious rumours. rumours Detriment 9: SK raised The claimant has not alleged a detriment arising out concerns with MP of the alleged whistleblowing. The fact that Mark regarding construction Poole took no action is not explained so that it would dept and ﬁbre glass use be understood that there was a detriment to the without face ﬁtting. No claimant. action. Detriment 10: SK was Detriments 4, 10 and 13: The claimant had reported excluded from a meeting to Mr Anderson concerns about the performance of regarding unsafe practices Richard Baker and as a result Mr Anderson set up a and working at height, was meeting to discuss this with him. During this unable to accept and not meeting Richard Baker expressed a desire/intention informed of RB’s to resign but did not actually do so. The reason for resignation after providing Richard Baker wanting to resign related to his photographic evidence, relationship with the claimant. There is no evidence undermining SK’s position of the claimant being subjected to detriment in this as dept manager. respects. Detriment 12: In a catch Taking photographs on set is subject to strict rules. A up with TD, SK relayed person with an office based role has not need to concerns regarding take photographs, Mr Davis considered that the accidents occurring on site claimant’s role was predominantly office based. and not being followed There is no evidence that the claimant was denied up or investigated, SK was privileges because she made disclosures. denied “photography privileges” by TD. Detriment 13: Following 3 See detriment 10 weekly H&S meetings between 8.8.22 and 2.8.22 SK was subjected to malicious rumours of her “clashing” with RB or of her being “diﬃcult”. This allegation is made against DA and TD. Detriment 14: No action There is no evidence that the claimant was taken, SK ignored when subjected to any detriment as a result of raising raised concerns about concerns about CDM checks. CDM checks not being carried out on ground resulting in unsafe practices. Detriment 15: SK updated The claimant was asked to identify potential TD on inspections not replacements for Richard Baker from people she carried out, knew. There is no evidence that the claimant was and that SK overloaded. subjected to a detriment in this regard when she did SK instructed to ﬁnd so. replacement. SK ﬁnds replacement and undermined by DA and shown no duty of care compared to RB. DA subjected SK to a meeting regarding RB and her dept. Detriment 16: SK Mr Anderson received complaints about the subjected to meeting on claimant’s ‘tone’ in communications and he raised “email tone”. this with the claimant. In doing so there was no Depts responses not detriment to the claimant. It was not done for a investigated nor pulled up discriminatory reason but in an attempt to foster on their “tone” by TD or good communication. DA. Detriment 17: SK updated There was no detriment to the claimant arising from SD on safety concerns the email communication between the claimant and and meeting with DA. No Mr Dettra on 8 September 2022. The matters investigation or action by communicated to the claimant about her meeting SD against DA for the with Mr Anderson and about the position of Mr behaviour towards SK. DA Baker did not suggest any need for Mr Dettra to didn’t see this as a investigate or take action against Mr Anderson. problem as SK was doing a “fantastic job” Detriment 18: SK was sent The email from Mr Anderson to the claimant referred a passive aggressive to here did not constitute a detriment to the email from DA at 20:39 claimant. aimed at silencing her from raising H&S concerns with SD. Detriment 19: SK with SD The evidence presented did not establish that the witnesses unsafe practices claimant’s opinion was ignored regarding COSHH at Shinﬁeld studios. After protocols. This alleged detriment was not proven. SD raised concerns AT and DA, DA ignored SK’s opinion regarding COSHH protocols Detriment 20: In meeting Mr Teeuw’ reference to Easy fixes was not him SK was cut short by AT being dismissive of the claimant or her concerns when raising safety about health and safety rather it was an indication concerns going back to that matters could be rectified simply. The conduct July 2022. AT spoke over of the meeting was not a detriment to the claimant. SK, interrupted her and passed concerns oﬀ as “easy ﬁx”, was dismissive of safety concerns raised. SK sends text to DA at 18:47 upset at being ignored for weeks at H&S meetings Detriment 21: At H&S Mr Baker had been away from work for personal meeting SK’s concerns reasons there was never and indication to the about RB to work with claimant that he would not be returning so there was SK’s team were ignored, no justification for preventing his return. even when raised aﬀecting The claimant was not responsible for the recruitment team morale and her own. of Safety Advisors and would not have been No action taken to prevent involved in interviewing. The producers recruit RB’s return to safety dept, candidates for the Safety team on Paradox. There no duty of care was shown was no personal slight on the claimant. The claimant to SK. SK sent email was not subjected to a detriment. 15.9.22 at 16.44 to SD raising this and unfair pay. SK excluded from being sent safety advisor CV for dept. Detriment 22: SK’s advice The claimant emailed Mr Davis and Mr Anderson to about construction not tell them that the production did not have cover for a working on Bank Holiday Health & Safety Advisor on the bank holiday, her because there is no safety view was that it was not a good idea for the support ignored by DA. Construction team to work on that day. Mr Anderson did not ignore the claimant’s advice. He took it on board but reached a different view for the reason he explained. There was no detriment to the claimant. Detriment 23: No action There is no evidence to support the conclusion that taken by SD when SK the claimant was subjected to a detriment as raised outstanding PAT alleged. testing, face ﬁtting concern. Detriment 24: SK The claimant has not established this detriment, the subjected to early morning morning meeting with Mr Anderson was not a meeting with DA and TD detriment. after she raised concerns of discrimination and pay on the phone to TD regarding hiring of AS without her knowledge. Detriment 25: SK received The hiring of technical safety advisors was not part email and raises upset of the claimant’s remit. There is no detriment regarding hiring of AS established in this regard. without SK’s knowledge. SK is no longer allowed to hire and make decisions regarding her department due to raising pay disparity. Detriment 26: SK in The claimant has not proved that she has been meeting about AS /pay subjected to any detriment in this allegation. disparity and safety in stages/workshops, harness sharing, hazardous chemicals used without PPE, cables in stages uncovered. No action taken regarding PDs or concerns site had slipped back with RB’s return. SK concerns of monitoring on the ground ignored, no duty of care shown to SK who has been overloaded for weeks. Detriment 27: After HSE The claimant was not informed her role was under inspection MP via text consideration. informs SK that her role was under consideration by AT. Detriment 28: Following an The reference to the structure being wrong was not H&S inspection meeting, a reference to the claimant being a problem. There AT implied the dept was was no detriment proven as alleged here, the not being managed reference to the structure related to the absence of properly and stated ‘the a senior technical safety advisor and not to the structure at the top in the claimant or her performance in her role. Mr Teeuw’s dept is wrong that caused criticism of the management of the department was the notices’ thus implying not a criticism of the claimant because he did not that SK was the problem. see the claimant’s role as being one to manage the AT also tried to remove SK safety department. from the meeting with Mr Teeuw did not try to remove the claimant the HSE. meeting with the HSE. “The inspector wanted to have a follow-up meeting with Mr Anderson and Mr Teeuw to discuss the responsibilities of the Producer and Production Executive, and the “pyramid of delegation”.” Detriment 30: Following a Mr Anderson’s email to the claimant was not a meeting with RH at about detriment, he was raising the issue of 3pm communication in the department in a balanced on 4.10.22, SK was pulled way. up by DA on petty issues in the Froth Pak email exchange. Detriment 31: SK raised The Tribunal agree with the respondent that the discrimination with SD. No claimant “feared that she would be blamed” and that action, investigation or this coloured her interpretation of events at this time. duty of care or real support The claimant was not ostracised by Mr Dettra. The provided to SK. SK was claimant was not subjected to this alleged detriment. subject of rumours that she was being replaced because of incompetence. SK was ostracised by SD. Detriment 32: SW refused There was a delay in responding to the claimant’s to have an oﬀ-record chat email requesting a “off the record meeting” because with it was a busy time for Sam Wright, the total delay of SK. SK’s concerns were about 7 days (including non working days) was not a not investigated. SW took detriment in the circumstances. Sam Wright did not over a refuse, she sated that she could not commit to such week to respond to SK. a conversation being off the record because she did not know the context. This was not a detriment to the claimant. It was not possible for Sam Wright to investigate the claimant’s concerns as she was not aware of what they were. Detriment 34: 1, DA The evidence heard by the Tribunal did not show ignored what SK said that the claimant was ignored by Mr Anderson about a welder’s regarding the welders course and showed that there course but acknowledged was a discussion about the budget to which the cost SB. 2, DA made decisions should be placed. This was not a detriment to the about claimant. what should be coded in the departmental budget without SK consent or involvement. SK humiliated and embarrassed as other dept heads copied in. SK undermined. Detriment 35: DA The evidence that the Tribunal heard on this point humiliated and shouted at was conflicting, we came to the conclusion that the SK, telling her evidence given by Mr Davies was credible and likely she has not done a good to be correct, the claimant and Mr Anderson both job, as she had 3 raised their voices during the meeting. Mr Anderson prohibition did not blame the claimant for the issuing of the notices. SK denied a pay notices by the HSE. To the extent that the use of increase while Murray P raised voice was a detriment it was not because of given a pay rise. the claimant made a protected disclosure, or done a protected act, or because of discrimination on grounds of her sex or race. Detriment 36: SK raised The Tribunal do not consider that the manner in concerns regarding which the meeting was conducted by Mr Davies was electrical slings after walk belittling or humiliating the claimant has not proved around with SD. The this detriment. manner in which TD conducted H&S meeting was belittling and humiliating SK. Detriment 37: Meeting In the light of the complaint made by Mr Bond the requested same day. Form invitation of the claimant to a fact finding meeting of was not a detriment. The contention of the claimant intimidation by using CC that the use of the Ms Campos’ title of VP, Physical title. During the meeting Production was not subjecting the claimant to a CC prevented SK from detriment it was not intended to intimidate the explaining. Failing to claimant. The claimant was told “if you feel you investigate SK’s have been discriminated against, harassed, bullied concerns of bullying, – it’s important you raise that.” harassment, victimisation, equal pay and protected Detriment 38: SK was A meeting was called to discuss, among other excluded from a matters, the way that the health and safety team Lucasﬁlm/Paradox safety was working. This was a meeting of senior meeting. JB was present. individuals. The fact that the claimant was not SK absence undermined included in the meeting is not a detriment. her position. VC who was present at this meeting conducted SK’s appeal. Detriment 39: DA isolated The claimant attended a course on the date of the SK from the second HSE second HSE inspection she was not isolated from inspection and from the the inspection, she chose not be present. There is follow up meeting no evidence of the claimant being excluded from regarding the inspection. any follow up meeting regarding the inspection. Detriment 40: The way SK The Tribunal concluded that the way that the called to disciplinary claimant was dealt with by the Respondent was not meeting and not given an because of making a protected disclosure or doing a adequate amount of time protected or because of her race or sex. to prepare for the meeting. SK requests Mark Poole to The fact that Mark Poole did not attend the attend disciplinary with claimant’s disciplinary hearing was not clearly her, Mark Poole was explained by anyone, there was no evidence that instructed by SD not to Mark Poole was instructed not to attend by Mr attend. Dettra Detriment 41: SK The claimant was dismissed for purported gross dismissed for gross misconduct, Mr Baker resigned his employment the misconduct without 1 circumstances of the claimant and Mr Baker are not week’s notice. Decision properly comparable in this respect. being made less than 24 hours. SK not allowed to There was no evidence that the way that the enter premises to pick up claimant was treated on dismissal was infected by computer unlawful considerations in respect of the way that equipment. With no the claimant dealt with. investigation place after she raised PD, PA, The decision to dismiss the claimant was sex/race discrimination, victimisation harassment and victimisation. While RB was allowed to work a week’s notice and remain on site. Detriment 42: On the day The claimant was not subjected to a detriment in of dismissal and before the this regard, she had been dismissed by the time she appeal outcome, other raised this with the respondent and did not identify production and crew the people concerned and by that time it would have members were aware of been common knowledge that the claimant was no SK’s dismissal. SK longer working for the respondent. highlighted this to RC with no response. Detriment 43: SK appeal The Tribunal do not consider that the claimant has conducted by VC. SK did been able to establish that she was treated unfairly not receive a fair in respect of the procedure. procedure, tainted due to VC’s involvement. Appeal letter upholding dismissal. Approved by:

[1]The claimant’s complaints of victimisation and wrongful dismissal succeed.

[2]The claimant’s complaints of direct sex discrimination, direct race discrimination, harassment related to sex, harassment related to race, unfair dismissal because of protected interest disclosure, detriments arising from protected disclosure, and equal pay were dismissed. Page 1 of 12 Wrongful dismissal

[3]By clause 5.1 of the standard terms and conditions the claimant’s employment could be terminated on 1 week’s notice. (p365)

[4]The claimant was dismissed without notice effective from 28 November 2022.

[5]Damages for wrongful dismissal can be awarded if the employee has been dismissed without the appropriate length of notice.

[6]The damages will cover the lost remuneration and benefits that would have been received during the full notice period. Damages are only awarded for payments and benefits to which the claimant is contractually entitled. The award is made for the net amount. The claimant has not failed to mitigate her loss.

[7]The claimant was entitled to net weekly basic pay of £1242.74. The claimant is also entitled to compensation for lost pension contribution during the notice period of £25.41. The claimant is entitled to recover damages for wrongful dismissal in the sum of £1268.15. Victimisation

[8]Where a Tribunal finds that an employer has discriminated against an employee, the Tribunal may:(a) make a declaration as to the rights of the claimant and the respondent in relation to the matters to which the proceedings relate;

(b) order the respondent to pay compensation to the complainant;

(c) make a recommendation that the respondent take specified steps for the purpose of obviating or reducing the adverse effect of any matter to which the proceedings relate on the complainant or any other person.

[9]In this case we do not consider that it is a suitable case in which to make a recommendation. The Tribunal in this remedy hearing is concerned with the issue of compensation.

[10]Any award of compensation must be assessed under the same principles as apply to torts. The aim is to put the claimant in the position, so far as is reasonable, that she would have been had the tort not occurred.

[11]Only those losses caused by the unlawful act will be recoverable. Losses that are too remote and unforeseeable will not be recoverable. However, any loss proved to flow directly from the discriminatory act will be recoverable.

[12]The Tribunal has to compare the financial benefits that the claimant had if they had not been treated unlawfully with the financial benefits the claimant has been able to obtain or will be able to obtain in the future. We have considered whether the employment would have terminated anyway, whether the claimant would have been promoted or received a pay rise, what employment has been or will be obtained, what the financial rewards will be Page 2 of 12 and whether these will increase to meet losses currently being suffered at some point in future.

[13]Injury to feelings awards compensate for non-pecuniary loss. In this case the Tribunal have upheld the complaint of victimisation and therefore the claimant may be awarded damages for injury to feelings awards.

[14]If the claimant is able to show that she suffered an injury to health, she is able to recover for that injury also.

[15]The award of injury to feelings is to compensate the claimant for the anger, distress and upset caused by the unlawful treatment she has received. It is compensatory, not punitive. It is necessary to focus on the actual injury suffered by the claimant and rather than the gravity of the acts of the respondent. The award for injury to feelings awards should compensate the claimant fully without punishing the respondent. Feelings of indignation at the discriminator’s conduct must not inflate the award.

[16]Awards should not be too low, but also awards should be restrained, as excessive awards could be seen as the way to untaxed riches.

[17]In Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No2)

[2003] IRLR 102

) the Court of Appeal identified three broad bands of compensation for injury to feelings and gave the following guidance (the figures have now been revised):(1) The top band should normally be between £15,000 and £25,000. Sums in this range should be awarded in the most serious cases, such as where there has been a lengthy campaign of discriminatory harassment on the ground of sex or race. Only in the most exceptional case should an award of compensation for injury to feelings exceed £25,000;

(2) The middle band of between £5,000 and £15,000 should be used for serious cases, which do not merit an award in the highest band;

(3) Awards of between £500 and £5,000 are appropriate for less serious cases, such as where the act of discrimination is an isolated or one-off occurrence. In general, awards of less than £500 are to be avoided altogether, as they risk being regarded as so low as not to be a proper recognition of injury to feelings.

[18]The Vento bands are subject to review and at the relevant time, between 6 April 2022 and 5 April 2023, the Vento bands were £9,900 to £29,600 for the middle band and £29,600 to £49,300 for the upper band.

[19]The claimant must provide proof of the nature of the injury to feelings. This can be done by providing evidential material that shows the impact of the discrimination on her subjective feelings of upset, anxiety, mental distress, fear, humiliation, stress and depression, all of which the claimant the complains about.

[20]Interest can be awarded on the sum for injury to feelings. Page 3 of 12

[21]A percentage increase or reduction up to a maximum of 25% can be applied to reflect a failure by the employer or employee to comply with the ACAS disciplinary code of practice (see ACAS).

[22]Any compensation for injury to feelings in a termination payment will be taxable to the extent that the £30,000 ‘allowance’ has been exceeded (section 406 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003).

[23]The claimant relies on evidence from multiple witnesses who describe her background, the circumstances surrounding her dismissal, and its subsequent impact on her health, reputation and career. These witnesses, including Kathryn Riley, Ceri Meyrick, Murray Poole, Julia Goitia, John Hookway, David Apparicio, Rui Mendes, Robert Denning and Teresa Parker Short, consistently portray the claimant as a previously confident, high-performing professional with a long record of public service, charitable activity, and, more recently, developing success in the film and television industry. They describe significant deterioration in her psychological wellbeing following her dismissal, including panic attacks, depression, anxiety, social withdrawal and loss of confidence. Some also speak of reputational damage within the industry, which they believe will impede her ability to obtain further work.

[24]In her personal injury statement, the claimant provides medical evidence of PTSD-type symptoms, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and physical conditions including chronic ear infection with hearing loss, bruxism, musculoskeletal pain and stress-exacerbated psoriasis, all of which she attributes to the respondent’s conduct and the litigation process. She states she has been unable to work since dismissal and has suffered significant financial hardship. There is no independent medical opinion or medico-legal report.

[25]The respondent’s principal witness, Mr David Atkinson, EMEA Senior Manager for Production Safety at The Walt Disney Company, disputes the claimant’s account of her qualifications, career trajectory and future earning potential. He states that senior safety roles within Disney require advanced technical qualifications, including the NEBOSH Level 6 Diploma, IOSH membership and substantial production experience, which the claimant does not hold. He characterises her NEBOSH Certificate and IOSH Managing Safely course as entry-level and states these qualify her only for coordinator-level positions.

[26]Mr Atkinson disputes the claimant’s assertions that she would have progressed rapidly to senior management, earned £163,000, or secured annual £10,000 pay increases, describing these expectations as inconsistent with industry norms and Disney structures. He also states that freelance production safety work is intermittent and that an individual with the claimant’s experience level would typically obtain five to six months’ work per year.

[27]Addressing issues raised by the claimant regarding age, gender, ethnicity, blacklisting and reputational harm, Mr Atkinson states that none would prevent her securing future work in film or related sectors. He notes gender Page 4 of 12 balance in recent hires, the presence of older safety professionals, and that industry references would not ordinarily disclose the circumstances of dismissal. Medical evidence

[28]The claimant has not engaged with the respondent in respect of producing a medico legal report which the respondent had asked her to. There is medical evidence from her private GP. The claimant’s private GP states that the claimant consulted him on 18 April 2023 with symptoms of anxiety and depression. She told him that she had been bullied and victimised at work and had been dismissed for "gross misconduct" and had not worked since 28 November 2022.

[29]The claimant started on an antidepressant from December 2022 when she reported that she felt undermined and ignored at work and reported concerns regarding racism; and that after doing a good job a male manager was brought in above her and that she then reported discrimination acts and health and safety concerns.

[30]The medical evidence points to conditions that the claimant has which are said to have arisen since her dismissal, as well as conditions that pre-existed the dismissal. The conditions referred to include hearing loss, musculoskeletal injuries, and a flare-up of pre-existing psoriasis.

[31]The claimant also has a number of other stressors unrelated to these proceedings: she has been a carer for a frail mother with terminal cancer, and her brother has suffered a serious injury. How these various conditions interact with the claimant’s dismissal and the findings of the Tribunal has not been addressed in an independent medico legal report. The Tribunal accept that the claimant has been affected by a variety of serious challenges outside the dismissal.

[32]We do not consider that this is a case where the evidence before us allows us to conclude that there should be an award for personal injury discrete from the award of injury to feelings. Injury to feelings award

[33]The conclusion of the Tribunal is that the evidence before us justifies an award of compensation for injury to feelings in the sum of £15,000. In arriving at this award we recognise that the claimant’ has suffered as a result of the discriminatory act of dismissal by victimisation. However we also note that it is not the sole cause of her condition which includes a variety of other stressors. This is in our view a significant case of injury to feelings arising from a one off incident of dismissal. We take into account that the dismissal has a lasting effect on the claimant and that apart from just losing her job the claimant lost something of significance in being derailed from a career that she was embarking upon with enthusiasm, hope and expectation.

[34]We consider that the award of £15,000 for injury to feelings is in the middle of the middle of the Vento bands at the relevant time. Page 5 of 12

[35]Aggravated damages are an aspect of injury to feelings, and are awarded only on the basis, and to the extent that the aggravating features have increased the impact of the discriminatory act on the claimant and thus the injury to her feelings. They are compensatory, not punitive. They may be awarded where the act is done in an exceptionally upsetting way, ‘highhanded, malicious, insulting or oppressive’ behaviour may justify an award of aggravated damages; discriminatory conduct that is evidently based on animosity or spite or vindictiveness or where it is intended to wound all might attract aggravated damages. These features in our view do not present themselves in this case.

[36]The claimant complained that the respondent did not apologise. Had they done so it might have a balm to the claimant’s hurt feelings. The absence of an apology in our view is not a factor that is aggravating, the absence of an apology is in our view objectively neutral. Loss of earnings

[37]The conclusion of the Tribunal is that the respondent had decided to remove the claimant and that notwithstanding any disciplinary action, the respondent’s view of the future of the department did not include the claimant. The Tribunal have concluded that was because of victimisation and that there was not a non-discriminatory reason that existed for the claimant’s dismissal. In respect of her performance there was no reason for her to be dismissed.

[38]In the circumstances we consider that but for the discrimination by way of victimisation, the claimant could have expected her contract to continue to its conclusion. The Tribunal consider that the claimant should be paid up until the end of her fixed term contract. The conclusion of the Tribunal is that, but for the victimisation, there is nothing that had arisen at the point of her dismissal that would have justified that the claimant’s employment being ended prematurely. We find no basis for concluding that the claimant’s employment would have been properly brought to an end without discrimination by victimisation.

[39]The claimant could have therefore continued working until 16 June 2023 which we understand to be the date that her contract concluded and therefore she would have earned £36,142.23. 1

[40]We have been asked to consider that the claimant has suffered stigma as a result of the dismissal. What is the evidence of the claimant suffering a stigma that would blight her ability to find work? We note that the claimant says that she is blighted by the fact that if you ‘google’ her name, the fact that the she brought a case against her employer comes up. That is not evidence that she is suffering stigma as a result of the actions of the respondent. We note that the claimant is not in employment but note that the reason for that is not in any sense connected with stigma or blacklisting, it is because the claimant has not felt able to seek employment in part because she is not well enough to work. 1 28.5 weeks at £1,268.15 per week = £36,142.23 Page 6 of 12

[41]The claimant says that she is ‘effectively blacklisted’ from employment in the film industry as result of her dismissal by the respondent. The claimant asserts that she has been blacklisted but she provides no evidence beyond an assertion. It is to be remembered that she has not sought work so the fact that she has had no work does not support blacklisting. The claimant says in her statement: “Putting my health issues aside, by removing both film credits, depriving me of the recognition for my work and labelling me with false gross Misconduct, with my reputation and MBE permanently attached to the stigma of discriminatory behaviour for saying “white man”, and the publicity surrounding this case, has not just marked me as unemployable in the film any industry, that is already underrepresented (page 160-166), it has blacklisted me completely, this is backed up by my independent witnesses from the film industry, Witness statements pages 6-15.”

[42]Of the claimant’s witnesses referred to Ceri Meyrick speculates that she believes the claimant’s dismissal, the allegations, and the media coverage have seriously damaged her reputation, jeopardised future employment, and may lead to blacklisting, making it extremely difficult for her to work or progress as a producer. Apart from her own assertion there is no evidence that the claimant would be prevented from getting work that she is qualified to do because of the way she was dismissed by the respondent

[43]In respect of getting work we note that the unchallenged evidence given by Mr Atkinson during questioning on behalf of the claimant was that to get work in the industry you have to build a network, make your own availability known, be able to do the job, your schedule has to fit in with a prospective employer, there is lots of self promotion you are constantly keeping that network open. The claimant’s dismissal has meant that she is disadvantaged in that she has temporarily been unable maintain these behaviours necessary to be able to find work in the industry.

[44]While we recognise that the claimant’s dismissal has resulted in a setback for her career, we do not consider that the claimant’s hopes and aspirations for her own career trajectory were realistic. The claimant said that within less than 6 months she had gone from Coordinator to Department Manager for a Star Wars TV series and that her trajectory was exceptional, and that she was earmarked for future productions and roles: “people work 10-15 years within the industry to get onto Star Wars, I had done it less than 6 months, without the completed qualifications.” The claimant sought to rely on text messages with Mark Poole as suggesting that she had the prospect of future employment or that she would be offered a corporate role with Disney, the Tribunal do not accept that these messages evidence that and so they do not support the claimant’s optimistic assessment of her likely career trajectory. The text messages (see p101-102 remedy Page 7 of 12 bundle) also highlight that the claimant recognised that the absence of qualifications was likely to the be an issue.

[45]The claimant’s witnesses evidence do not support this and we note the clear and cogent evidence of Mr Atkinson on this issue which makes it clear that the career trajectory that the claimant saw for herself was not credible.

[46]We consider that the claimant but for the victimisation, which has directly resulted in the claimant being unable to work, would have been able to find work in the industry. Had she completed the contract with the respondent on The Acolyte she would been in a position to look for work on the back of that and would not have been hampered by the issues that have prevented her from working (i.e. her health issues). She would have been able to, as Mr Atkinson stated use her network, make her availability known, and promote her self.

[47]The Tribunal have considered the submission that we should reduce the claimant’s award of compensation for the period from 5 December 2022 to 16 June 2023 by 70%. We do not consider that we can do that because there was in our view no performance based reason for the claimant to be dismissed. Any other reason giving rise to a potentially lawful termination of her employment in our view is entirely speculative.

[48]The Tribunal therefore make an award of £36,142 for the period between the claimant’s dismissal and the end of the contract. Further loss

[49]The claimant was employed on a salary that was outside the range that claimant would have been likely to receive in other similar roles in the industry. At that stage of her career she was not likely to have a track record to justify a similar pay in other projects. The claimant’s progress in the industry in our view is reflective of her drive and enthusiasm for advancing her career, we are satisfied that the claimant would have got more work in the industry after The Acolyte but that it is likely to have been at the market rate and not a rate that is over and above the market rate, as this role was.

[50]The claimant has in effect been a full time litigant in dealing with her case. This is at a time when the evidence given by the claimant shows that she has suffered mental health issues that have presented a significant challenge for her whatever their aetiology. The claimant will in our view be able to secure employment in the industry if she seeks to rebuild her career in the film industry. However, the combined effects of her dismissal which is disruptive to her work cv and her loss of health leave us with the view that the claimant has suffered a significant set back regardless of whether she suffers stigma from her dismissal or not. Having been out of work for some time and having been unwell she will simply not be as competitive an applicant for roles as she might have been had her participation in The Acolyte gone the distance. Page 8 of 12

[51]The claimant complained that she had been removed from the credits however the evidence that was produced showed that she was mistaken in this assertion.

[52]The conclusion of the Tribunal is that the claimant should be compensated for her losses in the period from the end of The Acolyte contract to the employment tribunal hearing.

[53]In arriving at the level of compensation what we have tried to do is balance the fact that it is not likely that the claimant would not have been in work for this whole period of time, but that she would have been in work for part of that time. The evidence we heard from Mr Atkinson included the following passage: “Secondly, it is not the case in the film and television industry that individuals are engaged on back-to-back productions. Instead, they are engaged for a proportion of the year. Based on my experience, for a freelance Production Safety professional (such as a qualified Advisor, or Manager holding the NEBOSH diploma), they are usually required and engaged for 9 or 10 months of the year (although I note that Paradox was a longer production and the safety team were needed for 12 months in this instance) and able to move between productions more quickly due to their qualifications/experience. Conversely, for an individual with limited health and safety experience such as Miss Khan, she would likely have obtained work for 5 or 6 months of the year until she had built up the relevant experience, as without the technical qualifications, experience and a strong network within the industry, she would not have been in demand for future productions.” The claimant in our view should be compensated to try and reflect this reality. The evidence of Mr Atkinson on this point was not contested. Assuming that the claimant was likely to secure work for between 5 months to 10 months we consider the appropriate award should be made on the basis of 7 months. We come to this conclusion because this is the median but also because if reflects that the claimant was someone who was still in the process of gaining experience and that as time passed if she continued working she would have been more employable.

[54]The period from the 16 June 2023 to 15 December 2025 is 913 days or about 130 weeks. In arriving at a compensation figure for the claimant we consider that she should be treated as though she was working for about 60 weeks of that period of time.

[55]The claimant was paid £850 per week on Pilgrim and the claimant was paid £1875 a week on Paradox. The Tribunal consider that the claimant should have been able to recover a sum of around £1175 per week for the type of Page 9 of 12 work that she would have been a viable candidate for and seeking in the industry. In arriving at this figure we take into account that the claimant was on a “very high rate for the coordinator… The rate of £1875 was very high and more matching supervisor or manager role in itself.”2 Mr Teeuw’s evidence on pay was that: “Usually the Advisors were on £1750 or £1500 per week depending on film experience, whereas the Coordinator was on £850 per week on another show that was shooting at the same time. The Head of Department would usually be paid £2000-£2500 per week depending on experience.” We consider that the claimant would have been able to use the fact that she was on a high rate to aid her negotiation for a higher rate but we do not consider that she would have been able to secure a rate that was so significantly over and above the going market rate.

[56]The Tribunal therefore make an award to the claimant in the sum of £70,500.00.3

[57]We were referred to a strike that took place in the USA that affected the industry significantly during the time that the claimant’s case is concerned with, we have not been able to form any view as to the likely impact on the claimant and therefore have not taken that into account because we do not have sufficient information to decide what its impact would have been on the claimant. Future loss after the hearing

[58]The Tribunal do not consider that the claimant should be compensated for any significant period going beyond the hearing. By that date it was a period of around 3 years since the claimant’s dismissal. In this period of time claimant has not worked at all in the film industry. The claimant has concentrated on preparing her case. The claimant has suffered health problems which she describes in her witness statement. While the Tribunal consider that taking account of all the circumstances including the claimant’s apparent state of health, including mental health, the effect on her confidence and self esteem, there has not been a failure to mitigate her loss thus far. The Tribunal consider that now that the claimant is not required to pursue these proceedings and the associated stress has been removed the claimant should be able to obtain work in such period of time as the industry in which she has chosen to work dictates. We do not consider that if there is a failure to find work going forward that can be said to be due to the dismissal.

[59]The claimant has not engaged with the respondent in respect of the claim for personal injury and we have not made any award for personal injury discrete from injury to feelings. In the circumstances the claimant has not shown that any personal injury caused by the respondent has resulted in her being unable to work

[60]While we do not criticise the claimant for not seeking work in the period since her dismissal we do not consider that it would be a just and fair award of 2 See evidence of Damian Anderson 3 £1175 (per week) x 60 (weeks) Page 10 of 12 compensation to continue to award the claimant for loss of earnings for an unspecified period going forward from the conclusion of the hearing. The claimant has not shown that she is prohibited from being able to work because of the respondent’s tortious actions we do not consider that she has shown that she will suffer stigma as a result of the respondent’s actions. The claimant has not shown that she will not be able to work due to the action of the respondent causing her a personal injury that affects he ability to work.

[61]If the claimant had not been dismissed there would have been a period of time when the claimant was out of work and seeking a new project. Now that the proceedings have come to a close the claimant is not restricted from seeking work. In the circumstances taking account of the fact that we have made an award of compensation that covers a period of three years we do not consider that if the claimant suffers any continuing loss that it has been shown that such loss is as a result of the discriminatory dismissal.

[62]We therefore consider that the award of compensation for future loss of earning should be limited to period of 12 weeks. We therefore make an award of compensation of Future loss 12 x £1175 = £14,100 in respect of future loss of earnings. Interest

[63]The claimant is entitled to recover interest on the compensation for victimisation.

[64]The claimant is entitled to interest on the award for injury to feelings. The award for injury to feelings is £15,000.00. The number of days between the date of the discriminatory act and the calculation date is 1,1384 days. The interest rate is 8%. The calculation for interest is as follows: 15,000 x 8% =1,200 (8% of the award for injury to feelings) 1,200 ÷365 = 3.28 (daily rate) 3.29 x 1138 = £3,732.64 interest on the award for injury to feelings The interest on the award of injury to feelings is £3,732.64

[65]The loss of earnings from the early termination of the contract is £36,142. The number of days from the end of the notice period of 7 days is 1131. The interest on the award for compensation for the early termination of the contract is £4,478.76. This is calculated as follows: 36,142 x 8% = £2,891.36 (8% of loss) 2,891.36 ÷365 = £7.92 (daily rate) 7.92 x 1131 = £8,957.52 (interest at 8% for 1131 days) 8,957.52 ÷2 = £4,478.76 ( interest from the mid point)

[66]The claimant is entitled to an award of interest on past financial loss of £70,500 up to the calculation date (9 January 2026). The period from the end of the 4 From 28 November 2022 to 9 January 2026 Page 11 of 12 contract up to 9 January 2026 is 938 days. The interest on the award for this loss of earnings is £7,246.05. The calculation of interest is as follows: 70,500 x 8% = £5,640 (8% of loss of earnings) 5,640 ÷365 = £15.45 (daily rate) 15.45 x 938 = £14,921.10 ( interest at 8% for 938 days) 14,921.10 ÷2 = £7,246.05 (interest from the mid point)

[67]The award for victimisation is therefore £151,199.45. Grossing up calculation

[68]The total award before grossing up is carried out is £152.467.60.

[69]The sum of £30,000 is deducted to reflect the tax free element of the award.

[70]The sum of £122,467.60 grossed up to reflect a 40% marginal tax rate amount is £204,112.665. To this figure the sum of £30,000.00 is added.

[71]The final award is therefore £234,112.66. Approved by: