Mrs N Hossain v Hampshire County Council: 6000650/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 6000650/2023

Between

Mrs N HossainClaimant

Hampshire County CouncilRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Rayner

Date 16 May 2023

JUDGMENT

The complaint that the claimant was unfairly dismissed is struck out.

REASONS

[2]Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years’ service to make an unfair dismissal complaint.

[3]The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years.

[4]Therefore the claimant is not entitled to bring such a complaint.

[5]The claimant has failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.

[6]Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out. The claimant’s other complaints are not affected by this judgment.

[1]In her application to the employment tribunal for a reconsideration, the claimant has set out a number of findings made by the employment tribunal which she considers are wrong. The matters which she criticises are findings of fact and in respect of those matters a reconsideration is not appropriate.

[2]The claimant has also made reference to a number of matters which she says she considers amounted to an apparent bias by the employment judge. These include comments which she alleges were made during the course of the hearing about the claimant not touching her holy book when she took the oath, and comments about the claimant being a simple Muslim, for example. Whilst employment judge Rayner does not agree with claimant about any such comments, the appropriate forum for her to raise these matters is by way of appeal, and not by way of an application for reconsideration.

[3]The claimant has provided new evidence in the form of a transcript of her complaint made to the police on the 27 January 2023. The claimant had resigned on the 21 January 2023 and it is accepted that this report was not before the tribunal and that it was potentially relevant, in that it records allegations that the claimant had made against the respondent and the head teacher, amongst others.

[4]However, the report is simply a record of the fact that the claimant had made complaints and a record of a subsequent interview with the claimant in which the police have recorded some comments about the claimant's demeanour at the time. The claimant made complaints of a very similar nature to the respondent when she met with Mr Merrifield a few days after she had spoken to the police and those allegations were the subject matter of her grievance and the subsequent appeal against the grievance outcome, and formed the basis of the complaints which she made to the employment tribunal.

[5]There is no dispute that the claimant raised these concerns and the fact of her having made these complaints is specifically addressed within the judgement. The conclusionof the ET, that none of the complaints which she made internally were well founded and have therefore been dismissed, would not have been different had the claimant raised this evidence supporting her assertion that she had also reported the matter to the police.

[6]The hearing of this c took place over a number of days starting on the 7 January 2024. The case had been case managed at a hearing before on the 11 August 2023 and orders had been made for disclosure of documents by the 9 October 2023. Following disclosure and preparation of a bundle, the claimant produced additional documents which the respondent agreed to include and which were included within the bundle.

[7]The claimant did not contact the police to ask about a transcript of her report and subsequent interview until the 29 December 2023. She wrote to the tribunal on the same day, stating that she had requested a reference number and been advised of the need to complete the form and had applied for the report. The claimant has not explained why she did not contact the police at an earlier stage to ask for the report, and does not say in her letter why she considers the report would have made any difference to the outcome of her case.

[8]It is accepted that the claimant, as a litigant in person and as a person suffering with some health issues, including anxiety, found the process of litigation challenging, but she was able to cooperate fully with the process for disclosure and for obtaining documentation. In the absence of any reason for not having asked the police at an earlier stage for the report, I conclude that the new evidence is evidence which could easily have been obtained at a much earlier stage by the claimant. She knew of its existence and once she contacted the police, the process for obtaining it was relatively straightforward. The claimant does not say when she obtained the notes from the police, but it is accepted that she did not have them at the time of the hearing.

[9]I have reminded myself of the legal principles applicable to an application for reconsideration made under rule 70,71 and 72 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.

[10]First I remind myself that the only grounds for reconsideration is that it is in the interests of justice to reconsider.

[11]I have considered the cases of of Flint v Eastern Electricity Board

[1975] ICR 395

and Outasight VB v Brown [2015] ICR D11. The principles set out in those judgments are helpfully summarised in the more recent case of Ministry of Justice v Burton

[2016] ICR 1128

, where at paragraph 21 the Court of Appeal stated “An employment tribunal has a power to review a decision “where it is necessary in the interests of justice”: see rule 70 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. This was one of the grounds on which a review could be permitted in the earlier incarnation of the rules. However, as Underhill J pointed out in Newcastle upon Tyne City Council v Marsden

[2010] ICR 743

, para 17 the discretion to act in the interests of justice is not open-ended; it should be exercised in a principled way, and the earlier case law cannot be ignored. In particular, the courts have emphasised the importance of finality (Flint v Eastern Electricity Board

[1975] ICR 395

) which militates against the discretion being exercised too readily; and in Lindsay v Ironsides Ray & Vials

[1994] ICR 384

Mummery J held that the failure of a party’s representative to draw attention to a particular argument will not generally justify granting a review. In my judgment, these principles are particularly relevant here”

[12]I remind myself that this can include circumstances where new evidence has become available which was not available at the time the judgement was made. I have reminded myself of the principles set out in Ladd V Marshall

1954 3 All ER 745

CA, in which the Court of Appeal established that in order to justify the reception of fresh evidence it was necessary for the claimant to show, first, that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use of the original hearing; secondly that the evidence is relevant and would probably have had an important influence on the hearing and, thirdly that the evidence is apparently credible. 13. in Outasite VB Limited v Brown 2015 ICR D11 EAT, the EAT held that the principles set out in Ladd v Marshall would still apply. I have reminded myself that it is not usually appropriate to allow a party a second opportunity to adduce new evidence simply because they fail as a result of an oversight to have adduced all the evidence necessary at the appropriate time.

[14]I also remind myself that it is only in the interests of justice to reconsider on the basis of new evidence where that new evidence is likely to influence the decision. I reminded myself of the dicta of the EAT in Wileman v Minilec Engineering Ltd

1988 ICR 318

EAT in that respect.

[15]Having considered the application made in detail, having taken into account the fact that the claimant was a litigant in person and having taken into account what she says about her own health within her reconsideration application and having considered the new evidence which she has submitted, I conclude that it is not in the interest of justice to reconsider of the judgement as there is no reasonable prospect of any part of the original decision being varied or revoked.

[16]Whilst the new evidence is credible it could have been obtained with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage. although it was relevant it would not have had an important influence on the hearing.

[17]The claimant’s application for a reconsideration of the judgement is therefore refused

[1]The claimant made a claim to the employment tribunal on the 11 April 2023, of unfair dismissal and race discrimination.

[2]The claimant was employed by the respondent between 4 April 2022 and 22 January 2023 as a special educational needs and disability learning support assistant. She was employed on a fixed term contract which was due to end on the 31 August 2023.

[3]The claimant did not have the necessary service to bring a claim of ordinary unfair dismissal and her claim was therefore struck out for want of jurisdiction.

[4]The claimant approached ACAS on 1 February 2023 and her certificate was issued on the 15 March 2023.

[5]The claimant had previously been employed at Horndean Infant School, which is a separate school, and her role there was separate employment with a different head teacher and a different governing body. Any complaints the claimant may have had about her employment at that school are not matters which are before this employment tribunal.

[6]The claimant has however made reference to something that happened at the infant school, and a complaint she had made whilst employed there. She also raised those matters with her medical advisers and it is possible that those matters caused her a great deal of upset and may well have influenced her thinking and understanding of things that she says happened to her at the Junior School.

[7]On the first day of hearing the claimant referred to a letter she had written following the case management hearing, in which she had set out a number of matters which she wanted to add to her claim. Following discussion with the parties, Mr Peck, counsel for the respondent, and the claimant both accepted that the majority of the letter was in the nature of further particulars of existing claims, but the claimant clarified that there were 5 matters which she wished to add on as amendments to her existing claims.

[8]The respondent opposed the application. Following submission from both parties , I granted the leave to amend and gave my reasons for that decision at the time. No written reasons have been requested of that decision and they are not repeated here.

[9]The complete list of issue for determination is as follows

[10]The claimant relies on the following allegations as claims of both direct discrimination and harassment because of/ related to race and/or religion.10.1 The Headteacher, Maria Ackland, said she “doesn’t want a Muslim like [the claimant] working in here”. – on/around 13 January 2023. The claimant says that this comment was made to her in a meeting on the 11 January 2023.

10.2 Maria Ackland asked the claimant why she was wearing a headscarf when she entered a church – December 2022

10.3 That the Claimant was forced to write her resignation letter at work – i.e., dismissal;

10.4 That Maria Ackland forced the Claimant to go into her office and change her resignation letter – she was told that if she resigned, she needed to blame it on the staff (not her) and if not then she would be dragged back into the office – January 2023

10.5 That Maria Ackland asked for the notes from the grievance procedure from the Claimant’s previous employment - January 2023

10.6 That Maria Ackland offered garden leave/money not to come in; - January

10.7 The grievance process was biased – outcome would be different if white or non-Muslim;

10.8 That Maria Ackland refused to grant the Claimant leave or that she said, “if you live in this country you need to follow the rules of this country”. In January 2023 Ms Ackland that she was Asian and that is why she refused previous requests her children out of school in December 2022; that Maria Ackland gave example of Asian families only, who had got into trouble because they took their kids out of school

10.9 Discrimination at a meeting with Maria Ackland on 11/01/2023; said: how dare you insult me – leaving Muslim books with my staff – the only reason I asked for them was because I wanted to bin them.

10.10 That Maria Ackland asked colleagues to take screen shots of the Claimant’s Facebook page; January 2023 – the premise was that she was being nonIslamic in photos on facebook page

10.11 That Maria Ackland ignored the Claimant or didn’t want to listen on the 20/01/23; told Claimant that she is wasting time and to get on with her work

10.12 That the school had discussed the Claimant with Health Assured Legal; Claimant says this was breach of confidence – January 2023

10.13 That the school tested the Claimant on her religion; - from the start of her employment – they taught Islam in the classroom and they asked her questions – Mrs Smith – had to show them how she did her prayers, questions about her hair, asked why she did not pray times 5 times per day or wash her hands – the tone in which it was asked was improper , and used to laugh at her: Mrs J Smith

10.14 That Maria Ackland said “it is culture not racism”; when comments were made about the claimant’s religion – ongoing

10.15 As an amendment to 71.viii Maria Ackland gave examples of Asian families only who got in trouble because they took their kids out of school this is race discrimination.

10.16 amendment to 71xiii in January 2023 Maria Ackland said how could I recommend someone like Sahir Alver come into the school to help understand the subject of Islam. Sahir is a Muslim and her husband is the president by a local mosque. She worked in the Infant School and was discriminated by Ann Brotherton, she supports the local community hugely this is racism/ religious discrimination.

10.17 at the meeting on 11 January Maria Atkins said if I go to the media only an Asian person will take it on. This is racism

10.18 At the meeting on 11th January Maria Ackland said if I complain about her she will come down on my kids. She mentioned what shorts they wear and branded boxer shorts. This is because we are black and not white .

[11]The Issues to determine will be: 11.1 Time: Were the discrimination complaints made within the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010? The Tribunal will decide: i. Was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (plus early conciliation extension) of the act or omission to which the complaint relates? ii. If not, was there conduct extending over a period? iii. If so, was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (plus early conciliation extension) of the end of that period? iv. If not, were the claims made within a further period that the Tribunal thinks is just and equitable? The Tribunal will decide: 11.1.iv.1. Why were the complaints not made to the Tribunal in time? 11.1.iv.2. In any event, is it just and equitable in all the circumstances to extend time? Direct race and/or religion discrimination (Equality Act 2010 section 13)

[12]Did the Respondent do the following things: see above.

[13]Was that less favourable treatment? The Tribunal will have to decide whether the Claimant was treated worse than someone else was treated. The Claimant has not named anyone in particular who she says was treated better than s/he was and therefore relies upon a hypothetical comparator. If so, was it because of race/religion?

[15]Is the Respondent able to prove a reason for the treatment occurred for a nondiscriminatory reason not connected to race/religion? Harassment related to sex, race, disability, age etc… (Equality Act 2010 s. 26)

[16]Did the Respondent do the following things: see above. If so, was that unwanted conduct?

[18]Did it relate to the Claimant’s protected characteristic, namely race and/or religion?

[19]Did the conduct have the purpose of violating the Claimant’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the claimant?

[20]If not, did it have that effect? The Tribunal will take into account the Claimant’s perception, the other circumstances of the case and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. Remedy

[21]Should the Tribunal make a recommendation that the Respondent take steps to reduce any adverse effect on the Claimant? What should it recommend?

[22]What financial losses has the discrimination caused the Claimant?

[23]Has the Claimant taken reasonable steps to replace lost earnings, for example by looking for another job?

[24]If not, for what period of loss should the Claimant be compensated for?

[25]What injury to feelings has the discrimination caused the Claimant and how much compensation should be awarded for that?

[26]Has the discrimination caused the Claimant personal injury and how much compensation should be awarded for that?

[27]Is there a chance that the Claimant’s employment would have ended in any event? Should their compensation be reduced as a result?

[28]Did the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures apply? If so, did either party unreasonably fail to comply with it by not brining a grievance before resigning/brining a claim? If so, is it just and equitable to decrease any award payable to the Claimant and, if so, by what proportion up to 25%?

[29]Should interest be awarded? How much? The legal approach to the allegations

[30]In this case a number of allegations have been made by the claimant which are about comments or remarks that Miss Ackland, the head teacher at the school, is alleged to have made to the claimant. Most of the allegations are alleged to have been made when only the claimant and Miss Ackland were present, with the exception of a comment alleged to have been made at the door of the church at a Christmas service when the Reverend Richard was said to have been present, and possibly to have overheard the comment.

[31]In such cases the truth of what happened is known only to the two people who were present. In this case both Mrs Hossein and Miss Ackland have given their evidence to the tribunal and been asked questions about what they say. Where there is no evidence from another person, or no documents which were at the same time, the tribunal will have to decide whose evidence it prefers, or put another way, whose evidence it believes is most likely to be true.

[32]It is for the claimant to prove their case on balance of probability.

[33]The first thing I have considered therefore is the evidence relevant to each particular allegation made by the claimant.

[34]I have addressed the issues in chronological order Findings of fact

[35]Before starting work at Horndean Junior School the claimant worked at Horndean Infant School as a lunchtime supervisor.

[36]The two schools are separate institutions with separate head teachers and separate governing bodies, but it is accepted that the premises of the two schools are next to each other and physically very close to each other.

[37]The claimant has three children and in 2021 one of her children was a pupil at Horndean Junior School.

[38]The claimant and her family wanted to visit Bangladesh in December 2021, over the Christmas break. The claimant asked Horndean Infant School, where she was working, if she could have some additional days holiday. She also approached Horndean Junior School, where one of her children was a pupil, as a parent, to ask them if they would grant her son an additional five days leave.

[39]The tribunal accepts that the reason for the visit was not simply a holiday but was a visit to see family due to a recent bereavement and to visit the claimant's grandmother who was said to be very old and fragile.

[40]The claimant also said on her application form that one of her sons had autism and it helps if the family could fly on quieter flights, rather than at peak travel time.

[41]The claimant had a meeting with Miss Ackland the headteacher at Horndean Junior School, who agreed to two of the additional days leave requested, being those at the end of term in December 2021. She did not grant the additional three days leave in January 2022.

[42]The claimant was unhappy about this decision and alleges that the decision was based on the claimant’s race and/ or her faith. She alleges that when she met Miss Ackland, Miss Ackland said to the claimant if you live in this country you need to follow the rules of this country. She also says that Miss Ackland gave her some examples of Asian families, and only Asian families who had faced legal action for taking their children out of school in order to travel abroad. The claimant says that she is aware of other white children being allowed to take longer holidays and told the employment tribunal that because of the comment made, and because of the difference in treatment, she believed that the refusal of permission to take the additional three days was an act of race discrimination by Miss Ackland.

[43]Miss Ackland denies that she made any comment to the claimant at all to the effect that if you live in the country you need to follow the rules of the country or that she made any comments about other Asian families. Her recollection of meeting is recorded on the leave of absence form checklist which was filled in at the time which records that she had a positive meeting with the claimant on the 7 September 2021. She recorded that she clarified that she wasn't prepared to authorise all five days on top of the 18 days holiday, but that she would authorise two days, to allow them to travel off peak due to the claimant having an autistic son.

[44]She recorded on the form that her advice was to reduce the trip to 18 days so that the boys do not miss school. In her witness statement she also says that she had a positive conversation with the claimant and that she would made the same decision for all families as she follows national and local guidance. She refers to children with relatives in Australia and South Africa and says the decision is the same. The tribunal accepts that it is her view that with the generous school holidays, family should not travel in term time unless there are exceptional circumstances.

[45]The tribunal accepts that this is the standard approach to taking children out of school during term time and accepts that this is a valid reason for refusing permission.

[46]Following the meeting Miss Ackland said that she was informed by a teacher that the claimant had told them that the comments Miss Ackland had made about her travel to Bangladesh were racist.

[47]Miss Ackland says she spoke to the claimant about this at the school gates in December 2021. Miss Ackland made a note of that conversation and stated in that note, that Mrs Hossain had shared some details of a grievance she had raised against the senior lunchtime assistant at HIS in December. She records that she, Miss Ackland had apologised to the claimant for any upset that she had caused when she spoke about the planned holiday, especially if Mrs Hossain had felt the comments that she had made were inappropriate due to racism. Miss Ackland states in her evidence that the claimant accepted at that point that there had been no racism, but explained that she'd been stressed out by the grievance she was going through at the Infant School.

[48]This is the grievance which Miss Ackland has referred to in her handwritten notes. Miss Ackland was also asked about this later on in the chronology of events, when the claimant raised a grievance. Miss Ackland was interviewed as part of the grievance by Mr. David Merefield. She told Mr Merefield that the claimant had told the year 3 lead that she felt comments made in September 2021 were racist about Bangladesh, so she apologised.

[49]There is no contemporary note from the claimant or any note from Miss Ackland as to what the comments were, which the claimant asserted that she had been offended by. What is evident is that Miss Ackland, on being alerted to a potential issue, had taken immediate steps to speak to the claimant and to apologise if anything she had said had been considered racist by the claimant and that she had understood that the claimant had accepted that there had not been any racism involved.

[50]The claimant was not an employee at this point but was a parent of a child at the school.

[51]I find that the comments alleged to have been made, were not made by Miss Ackland. I prefer her evidence to that of the claimant. If Miss Ackland had made any comment, then the claimant could have raised it when Miss Ackland spoke to her. I find that Miss Ackland was strictly enforcing a policy, and that Mrs Hossein was upset by that.

[52]The Claimant also alleges that at a later stage in the chronology, in January 2023, that Miss Ackland made a comment that she does not want Asians like you working at the school. I find that this was not said, for the reasons set out below.

[53]Miss Ackland has denied making the comment and the respondent relies upon the events after the refusal of the holidays, both as matters which suggest that there was no racist comment or intent in the refusal of holidays or the conversation about it, and of the implausibility of Miss Ackland making the alleged comment subsequently.

[54]Following the exchange at the School gate, and following the claimant visiting Bangladesh and returning, she subsequently applied to Horndean Junior School for a job as a support worker to a disabled child. She was asked at interview how she would deal with the school’s Christian culture and responded that as a Muslim she respected all faiths.

[55]Miss Ackland was one of the three people involved in the interview and role pay process and it is not disputed that the school and Miss Ackland were well aware of the claimant’s faith before she was offered the job.

[56]The respondent makes the point that if Miss Ackland had not wanted to employ Muslims like the claimant, then she did not have to offer the claimant the job. Certainly, at the time of the claimant’s employment two things are clear. First the claimant was happy to apply for and accept a job within the school and secondly that Miss Ackland was happy to offer the job to the claimant and appoint her.

[57]The respondent has made the point that the claimant was also happy for her child to remain at the school , but I place no weight on that fact, as I have no evidence before me of any alternatives available to the claimant, and also take notice of the difficulty of moving a child from one school to another, and the undesirability of doing so, particularly where a child may be receiving special support.

[58]I do conclude that at the point that the claimant applied for the job and started work with the respondent, in the spring of 2022 ( March April ) there was no concern or issue on either side about the claimant’s Bangladeshi heritage or her Muslim faith, and that the claimant did not have any concerns that Miss Ackland was racist, because nothing said or done by Miss Ackland had been about race or religion. Miss Ackland had not made the comments alleged by the claimant.

[59]Although the decision to disallow the additional holiday to the claimant was made at a point when the claimant was not a teacher at the school and therefore is not one of the issues before the employment tribunal, it does provide some relevant background evidence about how the claimant and Miss Ackland interacted prior to the claimant’s employment.

[60]I accept that Miss Ackland apologised to the claimant for the reason she has given to the ET. I find the note that she wrote contemporaneously is a true refection of the conversation. It was written at a time when there was no dispute between the parties and litigation could not possibly be contemplated. Miss Ackland had no reason to write anything but the truth and I find that she did write the truth.

[61]The claimant did not raise the matter at all, until much later in the chronology and I find that it is far more likely that the contemporaneous note written by Miss Ackland is an accurate reflection of what she did and said then, than the claimants recollection, over a year later, that no apology was made, is correct. I find the claimant’s memory in this respect and others to be unreliable.

[62]I also accept Miss Ackland’s explanation that the reason for refusing the holiday was nothing to do with the fact that the claimant was travelling to Bangladesh or that she is herself of Bangladeshi origin or that she is black or that she is a Muslim, but was because of the strict line taken by Miss Ackland following national guidance that children should be in school in term time unless there were exceptional reasons. I accept Miss Ackland’s view that there were no exceptional reasons and this is supported by the fact that she did agree to the additional 2 days leave prior to the Christmas holidays specifically to facilitate the family travelling at a quieter period, because of one of Mrs Hussein's children having autistic traits.

[63]I find that this demonstrates both that Miss Ackland was taking account of the claimant's needs and was sensitive to them but also that she was prepared to adhere to her own policies and principles even where unpopular and further that when alerted to a potential concern that a parent had, that she immediately addressed it and apologised without even being aware of what the allegation was. I find that this demonstrates at an early stage goodwill by Miss Ackland towards the claimant and a real concern to correct any misunderstanding over anything she might have said.

[64]I find that the claimant applied for a job at of a school and that Miss Ackland was engaged in her appointment and that anything that had happened previously between the claimant and Miss Ackland was therefore not sufficient to put the claimant off applying or to prevent the claimant from being willing to discuss her faith more widely with other members of staff.

[65]The claimant asserts that she was tested on her Muslim heritage from the start of her employment. I find she did not raise any complaint until she resigned from her employment. I reject her suggestion that she complained on numerous occasions to Miss Ackland. One reason for this is that Miss Ackland has made notes of a number of discussions and meetings she had with the claimant and has explained that it is her practise to keep notes of conversations and concerns that she receives from staff. Her notes are short to the point and reflective of the discussions which she says took place and are precisely the type of notes that can be expected from a busy head teacher of a large Junior School. She has no note of any discussion with the claimant about any concerns and I find this is because the claimant did not raise any with her. The claimant made no contemporaneous notes and did not pursue any concerns about her treatment about her faith until significantly later in the chronology.

[66]The Claimant has alleged that she was asked about being a Muslim during the course of RE lessons when the children were being taught about Islam.

[67]The claimant has described herself as a simple Muslim and has stated several times during the course of her evidence to the employment tribunal, that she was not an expert on her faith. During the course of her employment there had been some conversation with other members of staff about her faith and Islamic faith practises and the claimant refers to speaking with Rachel Charnick.

[68]The claimant does not complain about these conversations, and I find at the time she was happy to talk about her faith with Mrs Charnick and that she asked her husband whether he could answer some of the questions she had been asked. He suggested she lend her colleague a book which answered some questions about Islam.

[69]I find that the claimant did lend these books to Mrs Charnick and that Mrs Charnick did tell the claimant that she had found them interesting and helpful and asked the claimant whether or not the claimant would mind if she, Mrs Charnick lent the books to the head teacher, Miss Ackland. The claimant did not object and also made some suggestions that a lady called Saher Alvi, who was the wife of a leader of a local mosque, might be somebody who could be approached by the school if further information was wanted, because the claimant said this lady knew far more about Islam than she did.

[70]I find that the books were lent to Miss Ackland and I accept Miss Ackland's evidence that she was happy to receive them and was interested in reading them and put them on her desk but that she did not find time to read them.

[71]Miss Rachel Charnick did not give evidence to the tribunal but was asked questions by Mr Merefield, who conducted the grievance investigation when the claimant raised her concerns at a later stage. In that interview she was recorded as having said that she had had chats with Nadia Hussain on a number of occasions and had been invited to her home once for lunch. She said it was sometimes hard to follow her( Mrs Hosseins) thread and that she had once mentioned a grievance at Horndean Infant School, but it wasn't specific. She said it was something about a member of staff and the suggestion of racism. She then told Mr Merefield we had an interesting discussion on being a Muslim and she shared with me a book on the Muslim view of the bible and Jesus which I lent to MA [Miss Ackland] on her behalf. I got it back from MA and gave it to NHs son before half term but he couldn't remember having it but other children in the class reminded him that I had given it to him.

[72]At the point of Mr Merrifield's investigation, the claimant had not made a specific allegation that the questions asked to her about her faith in the classroom during the course of a lesson were discrimination.

[73]I find that the fact that Miss Ackland had not found time to read the books, was a reflection of the pressures on the time of a busy head teacher in a school with 85 members of staff, and not any reflection of her intention or interest in the books themselves.

[74]These discussions took place at an early stage during the claimant’s employment.

[75]This is one of the very few areas of evidence that I have heard where there is agreement between all parties as to some of what happened. I find it is indicative of a generally positive atmosphere and relationship between the claimant and her colleagues, and a willingness on the part of the claimant at that point to talk about her own faith compared to the faith of others and to engage willingly in furthering that discussion.

[76]The claimant has complained before this tribunal about being asked to talk about her faith, as a Muslim, during the course of a religious education class about Islam.

[77]The claimant said in evidence that Mrs Smith did not ask me, she put me on the spot, told me afterwards, I did not know when the lesson on Islam I was not told, and as for her statement she said that we had a good relationship, she did not brief me or ask me permission So when class was running, no courtesy, she does not know me that well, does not know how religious or if I am practicing, she should have asked me before, asked are you comfortable to help me lead the class

[78]She also said that she [mrs smith] was not very nice to me because links to the infant school and accused me from having an affair and that’s why I was being questioned about hand washing and prayer, it was the way she took the class, it was the aggression and her expressions and plus having other members of LSA, and Maria would not be aware this is what Jo doing with others.

[79]The respondent does not deny that the claimant was asked to take part in lessons where the children were learning about Islam but say that this was with the claimant’s agreement and following a discussion with her about her faith and following the claimant being asked whether she would be happy to talk to children about her faith and her agreeing to do so.

[80]We heard evidence from Mrs Smith, who said she had a good relationship with Mrs Hossein, who joined the school as a learning support assistant working with a child in Mrs Smith's class.

[81]Mrs Smith said that part of her role was to teach the unit on Islam, and that she was aware that the claimant had spoken to another teacher Mrs Charnick about her faith. She knew that Mrs Charnick had asked her if she would be happy to talk about her knowledge of Islam to pupils during the course of the religious education unit. Mrs Smith thought that Nadia had said that was fine. She also said during the lesson that Nadia had talked about Islam and being a Muslim and was asked various questions about it. Mrs Smith said she was happy to talk about it and to engage with the children.

[82]Mrs. Smith had then spoken to Mrs Hossain and asked how she would feel about talking about her faith and discussing it with the kids. Her recollection was that Nadia Hussain had said to her, yes that was fine. Mrs. Smith states that she was pleased, because having somebody talk from direct experience makes it more accessible and interesting for the children.

[83]The claimant is adamant that she was not asked beforehand, and that she was put on the spot. I do not accept her evidence and prefer the evidence of Mrs Smith.

[84]Mrs Smith’s recollection was that during the lesson the claimant had spoken about Islam and being a Muslim and that Mrs. Smith had asked a number of questions to draw out information. Her recollection was that the claimant was happy to talk about it and to engage with the children. She did remember that there was a section in the video about hand washing and that she did pause the video and asked Mrs Hossain if the video was correct and they then talked about this aspect of the faith and the claimant was asked to show the children how to do it. The claimant agreed and demonstrated. She was also asked about how she managed prayer five times a day when she was at work.

[85]Mrs Smith did not believe that any questions to the claimant were asked in a nasty way and said that the questions were asked from curiosity and to explore a topic further to help the children. She also told the tribunal that at the time the claimant did not raise any concerns or suggested that she was upset in any way by the questions. She was not aware of anybody laughing at Nadia and thought it was a really good session that the children had thoroughly enjoyed.

[86]The claimant accepts that she didn't raise any complaints at the time but did say that she felt ambushed by the questions.

[87]The claimant has told us very frankly that she has in the past suffered with anxiety and panic and has told us that since various incidents at the school her anxiety and panic have got much worse.

[88]The claimant did not raise any concerns about her involvement in the lesson on Islam until many months later. I find that it is more likely that the claimant had agreed to talk to the class than that she was asked questions out of the blue by the class teacher. I prefer the evidence of Mrs. Smith that she was told by Miss Charnick that she had spoken to the claimant who was willing to talk to the class and that Mrs. Smith herself asked the claimant whether she was willing to be included in the lesson and that she agreed to this. I find that this is what happened, and that was the reason for her being asked questions.

[89]I also find that the claimant’s contribution to the class was well received and something which stimulated and inspired the children. I accept Mrs Smith's evidence that the children would have picked up on any harshness or attempt to laugh at the claimant as realistic.

[90]Mrs. Smith told the tribunal and I accept that this is her honest recollection and belief, that the claimant appeared to be engaged and that any questions which she asked of her, Mrs Hossain, were not asked in an aggressive or confrontational manner. I find that Mrs Hossain told her that she had enjoyed the experience. I also find that the lesson was a positive one for children and that the children were engaged and interested and that it gave them an opportunity to get to know Mrs Hossain.

[91]The request that she be included and that she talk about her faith was a request related to her religion. There is no evidence that this was related to her race.

[92]I find that the teachers involved would have asked for input from any class assistant or teacher of a different faith when teaching the module.

[93]I have considered whether or not the claimant might have found the nature of the questioning difficult, so that it might amount to unwanted conduct. I do accept that the claimant may have felt nervous about talking about her faith and that she may well have found the questions difficult and the experience of answering questions to children harder than she expected. The claimant was a relatively new legal support assistant not a teacher.

[94]Whilst I prefer the evidence of Mrs. Smith in respect of the way that questions were in fact asked, I accept that in retrospect, the claimant may have felt uncomfortable discussing her faith, and may have felt uncomfortable that as the only Asian and as far as I am aware the only Muslim member of staff, that she was being treated as a spokesperson for her faith. I understand that a focus on one part of a person's personal characteristics which are specific to them might in some circumstances feel uncomfortable and may be treatment that a person finds uncomfortable in practice and unwanted. This is not what the claimant has said, and I find that she did agree to discuss her faith, and enjoyed the lesson, but may have regretted it after the event. If the claimant felt nervous and unsure about answering questions, I am satisfied that this was not because of any aggression or hostility expressed towards her by the class teacher or anyone else.

[95]The claimants allegation is that she was ambushed and not asked in advance, and asked questions in a hostile way. I reject those allegations as untrue.

[96]If the claimant had been upset and offended by the questions asked of her at the time, it is highly probable that she would have raised the matter with another teacher or somebody more senior. I have taken into account her history of anxiety but find that the claimant has been willing to stand up for herself and raise issues in other situations and she would have no reason for not raising any concerns at this point. In fact, Mrs Hossein did not complain about this lesson or Mrs Smith, or being asked to speak about her faith to anybody at the time or at all until the she had resigned.

[97]I find specifically that Mrs Hossain was cooperative and that she was willing to take part. This was not different treatment and nor was the request itself or the questioning and involvement of Mrs Hossain done with the purpose of creating an adverse environment for her and I find it did not have that effect. In short this was not different treatment and nor did it have the adverse statutory effect necessary for Harassment.

[98]I also note from the claimants of medical records that when she visited her doctor in June 2022, she reported that she was enjoying her new job. The claimant suggests that her GP had not written down everything, but I note that in other places where the claimant has reported being bullied and harassed at her previous work or has reported work problems they have been carefully noted by the doctor and I conclude that the reason the doctor recorded that the claimant was happy in her new job, was because that is what she was told by the claimant.

[99]Therefore, in June 2022 at least I conclude that there were no particular work issues troubling the claimant or causing her any particular difficulties, which she felt were impacting on her health or which she felt she needed to raise with her GP.

[100]Mrs. Smith said that she was shocked to hear that Nadia had said that she asked improper questions and laughed at her and denies absolutely that this was the case. She said there was never an issue between them and that they never fell out and that she thinks she was the first member of staff who got to know Mrs Hossain and that she helped her with him she struggled with. I accept that this is her honest recollection of what actually happened and is likely to be true.

[101]The claimant complains about this matter as part of a wider allegation that the school tested the claimant on her religion, that they taught Islam in the classroom and they asked her questions and that Mrs. Smith had asked to show how she did her prayers. She says the tone in which it was asked was improper and used to laugh at her.

[102]I find that the claimant was not spoken to in an improper manner and nor was she laughed at. I prefer the evidence of Mrs. Smith that there was a positive lesson which the claimant took an active and willing part in.

[103]I accept that at some point in the chronology the claimant believed that she was being asked questions about her faith and in particular believes that comments were made about her hand washing and her prayers and that she believed that comments and questions were not friendly and that she was being laughed at or bullied and harassed.

[104]The claimant has been very vague about when the alleged incidents happened and who was involved, instead she has named a range of people and asserted that this happened on a regular basis. She has said that she was spied on and asserted at the point of her grievance, that CCTV within the school was being used to watch her and that members of staff were being asked to report back to Miss Ackland on her activities.

[105]Other than the claimant’s vague allegations, there is no evidence at all that any of these things were in fact happening and it is quite clear from the evidence I have, that there was in fact only one CCTV camera within the school and that the claimant is quite wrong to say that CCTV was being used to watch her.

[106]I also accept the evidence of Miss Ackland, which is backed up by every single person who gave evidence to Mr Merefield, that no one was ever asked to report back to Miss Ackland on the activities or behaviour of the claimant. Not only do I accept the range of people who have denied this, but I also find that Miss Ackland, as a busy headteacher with 85 members of staff was highly unlikely to have the time to ask for and consider or be interested in reports or gossip about any one individual.

[107]I find that the claimant herself did not raise any such concerns during the course of her employment about any of these matters. I find that on the occasions when she did speak to Miss Ackland or when she was spoken to by Miss Ackland, the matters being spoken about were recorded or Miss Ackland sent out letters to the claimant as necessary.

[108]In none of those notes of meetings or letters written by Miss Ackland is any reference made to the claimant raising concerns about racism; about bullying or harassment or about any of the matters which she has subsequently raised.

[109]I refer back to my finding in respect of Miss Ackland's behaviour, when, at the outset of the employment she was alerted to the fact that she may have upset the claimant and I also refer to my findings in respect of the meeting of the 20 January 2023 and the actions taken by Miss Ackland to speak to other members of staff which are set out below.

[110]I also find that Miss Ackland operated an open door policy whenever she was available and that staff knew that they could talk to her with any concerns. Whilst she could not be available all the time, I find that she was accessible and available and that the claimant herself knew that she could speak to Miss Ackland if she had an issue.

[111]Since she did speak to Miss Ackland in January 2023, I have no doubt that had she had concerns earlier on in her employment, Mrs Hossein would have raised them and had she done so, Miss Ackland would have made a note of them and acted if necessary.

[112]I accept the evidence of Mrs. Smith and Miss Ackland and find there was no spying on the claimant and no laughing at her faith or the practices of her faith and that there was no unfriendly questioning or testing of her and no behaviour which might amount to bullying or harassment to the recollections of the claimant for the reasons set out above.

[113]For all these reasons, I find that the alleged unwanted conduct did not happen.

[114]I find that there was no unwanted conduct and that the conversations alleged by Mrs Hossein did not take place.

[115]The fact that the claimant did not raise any issue at the time, or subsequently suggests that the claimant herself did not feel strongly enough and I therefore conclude that any conduct which may have been felt to be unwanted by the claimant, did not as a matter of fact create for the claimant an adverse environment.

[116]I refer again to the medical evidence I have in which the claimant says she was happy at work. I have no reason to doubt that the comments made at that point were a true reflection of how the claimant was feeling and the claimant has not suggested otherwise.

[117]I find no adverse environment was created for the claimant.

[118]The claimant did accept in cross examination that a person of another faith may have also been asked questions, but she suggested that they would have been asked questions in a different manner.

[119]There is no evidence that the claimant was treated differently than somebody of a different faith, who could not also have been asked to talk about their faith in such a class. The question of the books

[120]The claimant says that she had conversations with other members of staff who were interested in her faith and religion. She says that she lent some books to a colleague. The claimant's husband who also gave evidence to the tribunal confirmed that the claimant had told him that some of her colleagues were asking her about Islam and that as he knew more about the faith than she did she asked him some questions. He gave her a book to lend to another teacher which she said answered many questions about Islam.

[121]I understood the claimant to explain to the tribunal that she did say to other people that she was not an expert and that she made suggestions of other people who might be better placed to explain aspects of Islam to the school.

[122]She suggested that a lady who was the wife of the local Imam may be more appropriate and suggested that that individual might visit the school. She says that this suggestion was passed on to Maria Ackland who was subsequently very negative about the suggestion.

[123]There is no dispute between the respondent and the claimant that the claimant did voluntarily lend some books to Mrs Charnick or that Mrs Charnick passed these books on to Miss Ackland.

[124]The claimant asserts that when she met Miss Ackland on the 11 January and that Miss Ackland made a number of comments to her, one of which was to the effect, how dare you lend me /insult me by lending me these books and that she had only taken them so she could put them in the bin.

[125]Miss Ackland denies that this comment was ever made and denies that she would ever make such a comment.

[126]Miss Ackland believes that the books were returned to the claimant via Mrs Charnick who gave the books to the to the claimant's son, to return to her.

[127]The claimant denies that this happens and asserts that Miss Ackland had thrown her books away.

[128]The claimant produced a witness statement from AH, her 10 year old son. In that statement AH has stated that he was not given any books by Mrs Charnick.

[129]Mrs Charnick, who did not give evidence to the tribunal, said when she spoke to Mr Merefield that she did give AH the books and when she asked him he did not remember.

[130]Neither the claimant nor the respondent wanted to subject AH to the ordeal of giving evidence at a court hearing. Firstly, he would have had to take time out of school and secondly there was a question about how helpful any evidence he could give to the tribunal would in any event be. This is not a comment on the honesty or otherwise of AH.

[131]Mrs Hossain was happy not to call her son to give sworn evidence and I explained to her that the respondent was prepared to accept the evidence within the witness statement, except for his statement that the books had not been given to him, which the respondent formally disputes.

[132]The parties agreed with the court that I would therefore write out a series of short questions for AH to answer, and that Mrs Hossain would ask him to write his answers to those questions at home, and return it to the tribunal. This was agreed to by all parties, and the answers were provided to the court and the respondent. The written answers were that he did not remember and did not think he had been given the books.

[133]His evidence was not given under oath and I did not therefore have any opportunity to ensure that he understood what it meant to tell the truth.

[134]The evidence I have is an unsworn statement from the claimant’s son and an unsworn statement made to Mr Meredith in the course of his investigations, from Mrs Charnick about what she says happened to the books.

[135]I have sworn evidence from Miss Ackland that she did not throw them away, but returned them to Miss Charnick and I have also been referred to a contemporaneous exchange between the claimant and Miss Charnick by text message, stating that she Miss Charnick had returned the books, by giving them to the claimant's son.

[136]I accept that the claimant's son does not recall being given the books and considers and believes that he was not given them. I also accept that Mrs Charnick believed that she had returned the books to the claimant's son.

[137]The text messages between the claimant and Mrs Charnick are neutral in tone and Mrs Charnick had no reason not to be completely truthful. The claimant's explanation for the texts, was that she was testing Mrs Charnick to see whether or not she was against the claimant. This is a very odd reason for writing the messages, but does not impact on the response received.

[138]I conclude that Miss Ackland did in fact return the books to Mrs Charnick as she stated and that she did not, as the claimant asserts put them in the bin. Whatever happened to the books subsequently appears to be a misunderstanding and does not assist me in determining the issue, which is whether or not Miss Ackland threw the books away, or said that she was going to put them in the bin. I find that she did not do or say either and dismiss this allegation.

[139]These particular examples are relevant to my assessment of the evidence in much of the rest of the case.

[140]I have had to determine what happened in several instances where the allegation is that something was said or done by Miss Ackland, and the evidence is the word of Miss Ackland against the word of Mrs Hossein.

[141]In each instance I prefer the word of Miss Ackland to that off the claimant and I find that the claimant has failed to prove that any of the events she relies on took place.

[142]The claimant has made a number of allegations and statements that various members of staff asked her about hand washing and about praying on a regular basis. She has suggested that staff asked her why she attended assembly and prayed when she was a Muslim and the assembly was a Christian assembly and has also said that she was questioned about how she washed her hands whether she used a hand dryer and also about her dress.

[143]The claimant says that she does not usually wear a scarf or head covering although she does on some occasions.

[144]The claimant says that these things happened on a regular basis but has not given any specific examples of occasions when these things happened or who asked her the questions or made the comments on any particular occasion. The claimant did not raise any complaint about any of these things until January 2023 when she resigned and raised a grievance.

[145]The allegations made by the claimant in this respect are vague and have developed and changed during the course of this hearing. At one point the claimant suggested that she was being spied on by other members of staff or that she was being stalked. She told the tribunal that staff were commenting on her clothes and the number of times she went to the bathroom and the number of times she washed her hands.

[146]I accept that it can sometimes be difficult for a claimant to remember the precise dates of events, and I appreciate that the preparation of evidence can pose particular challenges for a litigant in person. Nonetheless it is necessary for a claimant who alleges discrimination to identify not only what is alleged to have been said or done, but to give some idea of when it was done and by whom. Without that information it is not possible for the respondent to provide any sensible response other than a denial, and it is difficult to make clear findings of fact in the absence of any other evidence in the form of documents or witness evidence for example.

[147]The claimant bears the burden of proving facts from which the tribunal could conclude in the absence of an explanation that discrimination has taken place and this requires a claimant to be identify with as much clarity as possible what allegations are being made.

[148]I find that the vague and varying nature of the evidence given by the claimant in respect for the generalised allegation of bullying and harassment, and in respect of the associated allegations that she was being spied on, watched on CCTV, or tested on her faith, are not supported by any contemporaneous corroboration by any other witness or by any documentary evidence or by any complaint from the claimant for example.

[149]I also find that when the claimant did raise her concerns, following her resignation, each of them was investigated by Mr Merefield. He identified the allegations as far as he was able and then spoke to the members of staff who the claimant had named.

[150]I reject the claimant’s criticism that Mr Merefield only interviewed staff members of staff who were against her. I find that Mr Merefield conducted a thorough and careful investigation. He spoke to a number of members of staff, because he needed to hear what they said about the allegations made and the concerns that the claimant raised. It was entirely proper and indeed necessary for the investigating officer to speak to each of the people complained about. if he had not raised the complaints with the individuals, the claimant could legitimately have complained that her allegations and complaints had not been taken seriously.

[151]The report produced by Mr Merefield, which I find to be balanced and fair, was that there was no evidence of anybody ever making any remark or anybody ever hearing any remark of the type that the claimant had complied about.

[152]None of the allegations the claimant has made about remarks being made to her have been given any credit at all by the respondents. Miss Ackland has denied absolutely and categorically ever making any of the comments or remarks that the claimant relies upon in any form whatsoever. Similarly in the interviews held by Mr Merefield the comments; remarks and matters that the claimant complained about, were all denied absolutely by a range of individuals.

[153]Mrs. Smith who the claimant had asked should be interviewed but who was missed off the list by error, was subsequently interviewed by Mr Angell, for the purposes of the appeal. She also denied the events that the claimant alleged against her.

[154]There is no evidence before me to suggest that that any of the respondent witnesses who I heard from or any of the respondent’s staff who spoke to Mr Merefield or Mr Angel were anything but honest.

[155]The claimant says that she suffered with poor mental health as a result of everything that happened to her and that she had forgotten many things and only remembered them over time, as she was going through the process of her grievance and then the claim to the employment tribunal.

[156]I accept that it can be difficult to remember specific dates and I also accept that poor mental health, or experience of trauma can impact on memory. Have taken this into account when assessing credibility, particularly when determining who to believe, where there is a conflict on the facts.

[157]I have also considered and taken into account the medical evidence which I have been provided with by the claimant The claimant's medical history

[158]The claimant has produced some of her GP notes for this hearing and also relied upon them at her appeal hearing. The claimant tells me, and I accept that she has suffered with panic and anxiety, both in the past and more recently.

[159]I also accept the claimant’s submission that the fact that she has mental health issues does not mean that she is not telling the truth.

[160]One of the entries in her medical notes referred to by Mr Peck in his closing submissions and referred to in his cross examination of the claimant, is an entry following the claimant visiting her GP in September 2022.

[161]The September 2022 notes are considered in the following context.

[162]In December 2021 the claimant had reported to her doctor that she was a suspected victim of bullying and the doctor recorded that she had reasonable insight that her symptoms were stress, rather than heart related.

[163]In May 2022, following a telephone conversation, the claimant asked to speak to the doctor regarding a personal issue relating to bullying and the effect it was having on her. I understand this to relate to a concern the claimant had about her previous employment at the Horndean Infant School and not her employment at the Junior School. The claimant confirmed that there were no bullying issues at the Junior School in May 2022.

[164]In June 2022 the doctor recorded the claimant as saying that she was enjoying her job at the new school as a classroom assistant, but was not sure how to proceed re bullying at previous school. For example, was asked her religion by her teacher as she attends assembly, including a prayer at school. Confirm this was not appropriate; was accused of following head teacher around near his home on foot, then he realised it is another person. Patient has never been to that area but no apology. The claimant accepts and I find that these were comments about the head teacher in the Infant School and not in the Respondent Junior School

[165]On 26 September 2022 she spoke to her GP who recorded that she mentioned about hearing things or discussing things with her partner and her colleagues at work which did not happen. She said she has been undergoing bullying and harassment at work, She said she believed she had conversations with her colleagues and then when she approached them, they respond and tell her they never had the conversations. The GP recorded that the above symptoms have been going on for the last four or five days she has also not been able to sleep properly in the last few days; no visual hallucinations.

[166]I have not got the full GP notes before me, and no expert medical report has been prepared. The notes that I have seen suggest, at the very least, that the claimant was suffering from fragile mental health in late September 2022 and that she felt this was a result of things that she says happened to her when she was working at the Infant School.

[167]I find that at least in late September 2022, the claimant was not clearly recollecting things that had happened to her, and was concerned about things which had happened to her in her previous employment. I conclude that the limited medical evidence is helpful in identifying symptoms and effects reported by the claimant in September 2022, but that they do not help in assessing the truth of what happened in 2023.

[168]I have therefore considered the claimant’s evidence and assertions made be her in the course of questioning others. I find that during the course of the hearing, the claimant has made contradictory assertions about things that she had or had not said.

[169]One example arose in the context of the claimants forceful assertion that she was called into the headteacher's office more often than other people were. She suggested that Emily in reception confirmed that this was the case.

[170]On receipt of the grievance report, the claimant wrote a document responding to each point, and in respect of allegation 38 she wrote, not true. she could see I was in more than often. Maria knows I am a qualified financial adviser and have run businesses for several years and shared a lot with me too, as I could see a lot of faults in the school and brought them up often to help them improve.

[171]The claimant cross examined Mr Angel who had conducted the appeal and said to him in terms, that she had never commented that she had been a financial adviser or given any financial advice. When referred to her statement made at the time, statement, she accepted that it was a document which she had written and asserted that it had been misunderstood.

[172]Another example is that the claimant asserted that there was CCTV within the school and that was used to watch her and spy on her. I find as fact that the only CCTV camera within the school building itself is one that is used in the vicinity of the first aid room so that it can be monitored. All the other CCTV cameras or external to the school.

[173]The claimant alleged in her complaint at the point of resignation and maintained before this tribunal that she had been stalked by staff, spied on by them and that she was being watched on the CCTV. She continued to maintain that there were CCTV cameras within the school, in addition to the one in the first aid bay, despite having been shown the screens themselves and the angling of the cameras, by the respondent staff and others, on a number of occasions .

[174]For example, in an email/ letter to Mr Merefield, on 3 February 2023 she alleges that she was always watched on CCTV and made to sit in corridors. She said, They use to tell me what I was doing . They said they had CCTV in the staff room…….Maria said she watches me on CCTV, even who I talk to at home time…p 69. I understand this to be a reference to the use of an external CCTV camera.

[175]I reject the claimant’s evidence and find that she was not watched on CCTV by anyone and that no one made her sit in the corridor and that nobody said they knew what she was doing or that they had CCTV in the staffroom and that Maria in particular did not watch the claimant during the day or at home time.

[176]There was only one camera in the school and the claimant was shown the cameras and given the opportunity to review how the camera worked. Despite this she has maintained that she had been watched in school.

[177]I have therefore considered whether or not any reliance can be placed on the assertions made by the claimant in respect of any of the vague allegations that comments were made to her or the allegations that she was being watched and spied on, that she was tested on her faith or asked about hand washing or wearing a headscarf on a regular and ongoing basis.

[178]I find her evidence to be wholly unreliable and I reject it. I do not have sufficient medical information to determine whether or not there may have been some medical reason for the claimant forming the views that she did form about her treatment at the school. What I do find is that she was wholly wrong about all of those matters. December 2022 Church service and Headscarf incident.

[179]In December 2022, the claimant attended at the church to see one of her children in the school play.

[180]This was a popular event and there was limited seating within the church. Miss Ackland told us and I accept that the claimant arrived rather late and there were not many seats left. She said that the school had reserved a pew for staff and that she encouraged the claimant to sit in the reserved seats and that the claimant did so. She said the claimant seemed to be her usual self and there was nothing to indicate that she was upset in any way. I find that this was an example of Miss Ackland making sure her teaching assistant was seated in a good seat, and was a kindness and nothing more.

[181]The claimant says that she was wearing a headscarf and that when she arrived Miss Ackland made an adverse comment about her wearing the headscarf and the claimant believed that she was being told off by miss Ackland. She says that she was told to go and sit with staff at the front and that she did so. She says that the comment was made in front of Reverend Richard Hutchins.

[182]In the list of issues the comment is recorded as Maria Ackland asked the claimant why she was wearing a headscarf when she entered a church.

[183]In her witness statement, the claimant said that Miss Ackland humiliated her at church for wearing a headscarf saying why have I worn A headscarf I should wear it every day how could I wear that in the church and that she then laughed at the claimant with Paula when they went back to the went back in the office

[184]The claimant said she did not usually wear a headscarf and Miss Ackland accepted in evidence that she had not seen the claimant wearing a headscarf before. She denies that she made any comment at all about the claimant wearing a headscarf .

[185]In her interview with Mr Merefield, Miss Ackland acknowledged that the claimant was wearing a headscarf and said she thought it was the first time she'd seen her wearing one, but she didn't comment on it.

[186]Reverend Richard was also interviewed and asked whether he had over heard anything being said and he stated that he had not over heard anything at the Christmas church service. He said nothing was said at the service raised his concern and that if he had heard anything said by any colleague then he would have referred to it.

[187]The claimant asserts that this was an act of race discrimination and harassment and or religious discrimination and or harassment.

[188]The claimant was attending the occasion as a parent of a child although she did sit with staff. If the comment was made then it was capable of being an offensive comment because it was drawing attention to the claimant's choice of religious dress and a comment of that type made by a head teacher to a staff member at an event linked to the school, was be capable of creating an intimidating or offensive environment for her at work.

[189]I remind myself that the claimant bears the burden of proving that the thing happened, and here it is her word against Miss Ackland.

[190]No one heard any comment being made and Miss Ackland vehemently denies that she would ever make such a comment. I find it is inherently unlikely that Miss Ackland, a head teacher of a faith school with a multi faith ethos, would comment on such a matter on such an occasion. I find she did not make such a comment and dismiss this allegation. The meeting of 11 January 2023

[191]The parties agree that Maria Ackland asked to meet with the claimant on the 11 January 2023 and also agreed that the claimant was not told in advance what the meeting was about. Maria Ackland asked her deputy Lou Bundy to sit in on the meeting, but as it was not a formal meeting.

[192]The meeting was not a formal meeting but was intended to be a discussion about a concern which had been raised with Miss Ackland by a parent.

[193]Miss Ackland told the tribunal and I accept that it was her honest view that since this was a simple meeting with a member of staff there was no need for any further formalities.

[194]I accept that the reason why Miss Ackland asked the claimant to meet with her was because a parent had approached her in October 2022 and complained that Mrs Hossein had been stalking him and that her constant phone calls; text messages and other contacts had been unwelcome.

[195]Miss Ackland had met Mrs Hossain previously on the 21 October 2022, again with her deputy head , in respect of the same parent, but in the context of Mrs Hossein being concerned about unwanted contact, and had explained that she was a valued member of staff and even if issues were arising outside school, that she would support her.

[196]The purpose of the meeting in January 2023 was to discuss the concern of the parent, that had been raised again, and I accept that this was the only reason for Miss Ackland wanting to meet the claimant.

[197]The claimant does not dispute that this was a reason for her being asked to meet and does not dispute that the issue of her alleged unwanted contact with the parent was discussed at the meeting.

[198]Following the meeting Miss Ackland wrote to the claimant on 12 January 2023, as follows Dear Nadia I refer to our meeting on Wednesday 11 January 2023. this letter, which is not written as part of any formal procedure, summarises the matter we discussed and is intended to be helpful to you in guiding your future conduct and ensuring you are clear about the expectations I have on you . it will be held on your file as a record of our discussion. at the meeting I discussed with you a concern raised this week by a parent Mr X. first I remind you that we spoke on 21 October 2022 about an issue you had with Mr X’s unwelcome attention . At that time, I advised you to bring any issues of this nature to me as you are a valued member of staff and I have a duty to support and protect you. in our meeting yesterday I explained that Mr X spoke with me this week as he has an issue with unwelcome contact from you . Mr X told me that he asked you in early October 2022 to stop contacting him but you have continued to do so. I asked you if you had contacted Mr X since I met with you on 21 October 2022 and you told me that you have exchanged messages; simple messages many of which you said he has avoided answering. You also told me that on one occasion, later confirmed to be 11 October 2022, the two of you have spoken on the phone. However you did also confirm that Mr X has asked you not to contact him but that you have continued to do so .I asked you for your view of the issue and you said that Mr X tried to initiate a relationship with you telling you at our PTF a summer fun evening on Friday 16 September 2022 that he really likes you and loves the way you look after your children. You went on to tell me that Mr X had been doing some research into Islamic arranged marriages and that he proposed to you getting down on one knee and asking you to marry him at the PTF event. I explained that any further contact with Mr X is not acceptable. I explained unwelcome contact could not be repeated and if it were, after proper and full investigation could lead to me considering further action under the disciplinary policy. We have agreed again that you will bring any issues of this nature to me as you are a valued member of staff and I have a duty to support and protect you. If you have any questions about this letter or would like further support in how to manage unwelcome contact then please let me know and we will arrange a meeting to discuss this. I enclose a copy of this letter for you to pass to your representative if you wish.

[199]I find that this was a kind and respectful letter, and that Miss Ackland was genuinely seeking to manage what was obviously a difficult situation.

[200]The claimant asserts that whilst Miss Bundy was in the room Miss Ackland said something which Miss Bundy objected to. The claimant was not able to say what the comment was.

[201]The claimant also asserts that after Miss Bundy left the meeting there was a further conversation between her and Miss Ackland, during which Miss Ackland made a number of comments.

[202]Firstly she asserts that Miss Ackland said how dare you insult me-leaving Muslim books with my staff-the only reason I asked for them was because I wanted to bin them. Any Quran in the school have been binned.

[203]The claimant asserts that Miss Ackland said how could she Mrs Hossein, recommend someone like SA to come into the school to help her.

[204]She asserts that a comment was made about a parent who wore a hat instead of a headscarf and she was a Muslim convert. Mrs Hossain says that Miss Ackland commented what type of Muslim is she we need to stay away from converts like her and an LSA, SA , who the claimant believed was a Christian convert.

[205]The claimant asserts that Miss Ackland told her we do not want Muslims like you working in the school. She said that Miss Ackland told her that she needed to write her resignation letter at work; that she needed to leave it simple like she did with Mr Frank the Infant School head teacher.

[206]Mrs Hossain also said that if she was told by Mrs Ackland that if she needed to put anything, then blame goes on staff and if she put any blame on her, Miss Ackland, she would make her go back into the office and change it in front of her.

[207]She asserts that Miss Ackland told her that she wanted her notes from the grievance procedure at the Infant School and threatened her and told her to bring the notes in and leave them in her office. Mrs Hossein said that Miss Ackland offered her garden leave to the end of her contract saying, she needed to be compensated the correct way.

[208]She also asserts that it was at this meeting that she was told by Miss Ackland that if she were to go to the media, only an Asian person would take it on and further that Miss Ackland said if the claimant complained about her, she, Miss Ackland would come down on Mrs Hossein's kids.

[209]Mrs Hossein said that Miss Ackland then mentioned the type of shorts her children wore and that they were branded boxer shorts. She says these comments were comments that were both racist and because the claimant was black and not white.

[210]The claimant also says that following the meeting she was instructed to go through her mobile phone and that Miss Ackland looked over her shoulder and noted down certain information whilst making comments about photographs on her Facebook page.

[211]Mrs Hossein says that the comments were to the effect that, some of the photographs were unislamic and why did she have photographs of young men with muscles on her phone. The claimant says that these were photographs of her nephews.

[212]Miss Ackland told the tribunal that there was no further conversation between herself and Mrs Hussein following the end of the meeting at all. She said that once they had finished discussing Mr X, that Lou Bundy had to leave to go to another meeting and that her and the claimant also left the room together and then stood together in the corridor whilst the claimant searched for a message that she said she had received from Mr X on her mobile phone. She denies that she made any of the comments alleged by Mrs Hossein.

[213]Miss Ackland told the tribunal that the claimant had said she had some messages or records of phone calls on her phone log which she wanted Miss Ackland to see and that Miss Ackland was happy for the claimant to find them and show them to her. She accepted that they were stood in the corridor but denies that she was looking over the claimant's shoulder or taking notes. She strongly denied that she made any comments about any of the photographs on the claimant's phone, either as the claimant has alleged, or otherwise. She said she has never seen the claimants Facebook page.

[214]Miss Ackland also points out that at this meeting she had underlined that the claimant was a valued member of staff, and that the claimant had not made any indication at all that she intended to resign. Miss Ackland asserted forcefully in response to questions from the claimant, that the only thing that had been discussed at that meeting was the complaint or concern raised by the parent Mr X. She denies absolutely that any of the comments which the claimant alleged were made were made by her on that occasion or on any other occasion.

[215]Miss Ackland has replied specifically to each and every alleged comment when put to her, stating that the only things that were discussed at that meeting were the issue with Mr X and following the meeting the claimant's own desire to show miss Ackland some further call logs from her mobile phone.

[216]Had Miss Ackland made the comments which the claimant reports and had any member of staff commented that they would throw away a copy of the Quran or if in a Quran had been thrown away, that would be a very serious matter and would give serious offence to the claimant or any Muslim parent or member of staff.

[217]I accept without reservation the sworn evidence of Miss Ackland that she did not make any of the comments that the claimant accuses her of making and that she would never do the things alleged such as throw away a holy book and that this did not in fact happen and never would happen.

[218]I accept her evidence that she would have been interested to read the books but simply did not have time and therefore made arrangements for them to be returned to the claimant. .

[219]The reasons I prefer the evidence of Miss Ackland to the evidence of Mrs Hossain are as follows.

[220]Miss Ackland was a respected and well liked the Head teacher of a faith-based school, rooted in the Christian tradition, but with a strong respect for all faiths and all those who practise different faiths or none.

[221]I find the evidence given by Miss Ackland has been consistent and in line with every contemporaneous note or letter which she has written, and which the tribunal have been referred to.

[222]I find no independent evidence at all of any which supports any of the allegations that the clamant makes about comments alleged to have been said to her at any time.

[223]I find that on one occasion when Miss Ackland was aware that she may have caused offence to the claimant, she immediately apologised and sought to ensure that the claimant was reassured. This is indicative, I find of a Head teacher who was very aware of the possibility of unintentionally giving offence, and a person who was very willing to deal with such matters, even when she did not consider any thig she had said was capable of giving offence.

[224]I have read with great care the notes made by Mr Merefield and notes made by Mr Angel, of interviews with staff and of interviews with Miss Ackland during the course of the grievance process and the appeal against the grievance respectively. A number of staff were interviewed, and all the comments made about Miss Ackland were positive and a number commented on how professional she is. A number of staff referred to the ethos of the school and none of them considered that they had ever seen any example of discrimination at all and all of them denied that Miss Ackland had ever asked any of them to do anything untoward.

[225]Miss Ackland herself has engaged politely but firmly with the claimant a this hearing, and has taken time to ensure that she answered every single allegation put to her in a full and open manner. This was also true of Mrs. Smith; Mr Merefield and Mr Angel.

[226]Everybody who has given evidence on behalf of the respondent and all the notes that I have read from the respondent’s staff have indicated and evidenced nothing but respect for the head teacher, the school, the process and for the claimant.

[227]Whilst there have been varied descriptions of the claimant, nobody has said anything negative about her and the only thing that approaches any criticism is a suggestion that the claimant is some sometimes difficult to follow.

[228]Miss Bundy in her discussion with Mr Merefield stated twice that Miss Ackland is the most professional person I know and in all my time working with her I've never asked heard her ask anybody to talk to Mrs Hossein and get information to pass back to her.

[229]I have no evidence and have made no findings of fact which suggest either that Miss Ackland was being untruthful or that what the claimant has said is true, other than the assertions from the claimant herself.

[230]I do have evidence before me that the claimant has been wrong or mistaken about events both before and after this meeting, and I have made findings of fact in respect of other matters to the effect that the claimant has been incorrect about her recollection.

[231]I have also taken into account the inherent implausibility of a number of the comments that were alleged to have been made by the head teacher. These include the suggested comment about the claimant having to go into the office to write her resignation and being made to rewrite her resignation letter. Not only would this be a very odd thing for a head teacher to say at all, but at that point in the chronology, on the 11 January, there had been no discussion of resignation at all and the claimant had not in fact written a resignation letter.

[232]I find it inherently implausible that Miss Ackland would comment on the clothing or underwear worn by any at her school, or that she would say to the claimant, that were she to complain, she would come down hard on her children.

[233]I have also taken into account the complaints made by the claimant, only a few days later, and the way Miss Ackland handled them. The claimant was content to raise difficult issues with Miss Ackland, and I find that this was because she trusted Miss Ackland and knew that she would be listened to and matters dealt with. She clearly did not have any concerns that Miss Ackland would berate her, make racist remarks or insist that she resign, and the reason was that the alleged comments had not in fact been made.

[234]I find that Miss Ackland is a kind, dedicated, professional and very hard-working head teacher, who is valued and trusted by her staff and her governors. There is no evidence that she is anything other than appropriately caring for those children entrusted to her at the school, and there is no evidence that claimant’s children have been treated any differently to anyone else’s children at any stage during these lengthy and difficult proceedings. I find they have not been.

[235]This is the word of Miss Ackland against the word of the claimant, and I prefer the evidence of Miss Ackland on every point of difference.

[236]In respect of the allegation that additional comments were made following the meeting on the 11 January 2023 I conclude that no such comments were made. The claimant has not proved her case and in any event, I find it more likely that Miss Ackland's recollection is true and honest than that the comments alleged by the claimant are true and accurate.

[237]I conclude that the claimant is wrong about the events of that day. She has either deliberately fabricated events or has misremembered them, or imagined conversations which she has subsequently come to believe in fact happened. It may be that the claimant is honest but mistaken, but the sheer quantity of bizarre and implausible allegations and the constant shifting, changing and development of those allegations before me raise a serious question about the claimants credibility and reliability. I find that , whether she believes the allegations or not, she is wholly wrong, and an unreliable witness. The meeting of 20 January 2023

[238]After the alleged incident on 11 January 2023, and on Thursday 19 January 2023, the claimant asked to meet Mrs Ackland to discuss some issues. Miss Ackland was unable to make time that day, but arranged a time the following afternoon, which was a Friday. The claimant says that she had tried to speak to Miss Ackland a number of times, but also acknowledged that several times she had gone to see her Miss Ackland had not been in her room.

[239]I accept that Miss Ackland has an open-door policy where possible and that staff know they can approach her in person or by sending an e-mail. I find that with 85 staff she received regular requests from staff to speak to her, numerous times each week. I find that Miss Ackland made time for the claimant as soon as she was able to do so.

[240]I find that at the meeting the claimant raised concerns about the way she had been treated by particular members of staff. One issue was that the claimant's son had been upset in class and the LSA who looked after him had come into the class where Mrs Hossein was working to question her about why her son was upset.

[241]Miss Ackland acknowledged that this was not acceptable or appropriate behaviour, and I find that Miss Ackland spoke to the member of staff early the following week, and told her that she should not approach Mrs Hossain as a parent, whilst she was working as a member of staff, but should deal with any matter arising in the same way as she would for any other child.

[242]The second matter concerned an issue that had been raised with the claimant about the suitability of a book for the child she was supporting. The claimant raised a concern that with the class teacher had overruled her. The third matter was in respect of another member of staff whom Mrs Hossain said had rudely told her about an issue with the SAT papers.

[243]The claimant says that Miss Ackland did not want to listen to her; did not give her a chance to explain and rudely told her that she was wasting the child's time. Mrs Hossein says that Miss Ackland’s body language suggested to that she simply wanted to get her, Mrs Hossein, out of her room.

[244]Miss Ackland says that she gave the claimant every opportunity to explain her concerns; that she acknowledged the claimant’s concerns and that in respect of the first matter she accepted that the claimant had an issue. She made a short note during the meeting in which she summarises the issues and then states that she told Nadia to manage low level concerns and to take professional advice from more experienced staff. She explained and I accept that she discussed with Mrs Hossain the fact that both JR and EJ ( the teachers) had more experience than her and were in effect senior and that she should listen to what they said as they may have helpful things to say to her.

[245]I find that she said to the claimant that the claimant should let people know if she thought they were talking to her rudely or harshly and that if they did it again then she should bring it straight back to Miss Ackland.

[246]I prefer the recollection of Miss Ackland that this was a meeting that took more than the 5 minutes as asserted by the claimant and find that the claimant had every opportunity to explain her concerns and to discuss them.

[247]I reject the claimant’s assertions that Miss Ackland was rushed or rude to the claimant, and find that she did not try to hurry her out of the room. I do not find that she was uncaring. The same file note records that Miss Ackland spoke to two of the people the claimant had raised concerns about and her subsequent evidence was that she had asked the teachers and support staff to make sure that they were in effect gentle and kind when raising matters with the claimant. I find that this is a fair reflection of what was said and done by Miss Ackland.

[248]The claimant says that following the meeting, when the teachers come out with the children at 3:20 PM JS said if you complain about her meaning Maria Ackland you complain about all of us. The claimant says this was the last Friday when Maria Ackland took her into the office and I realised she was doing this to me along with staff.

[249]I find that this allegation was a comment made in an e-mail to Mr Merefield, following the claimant’s initial meeting with him following termination of her employment, and that he had investigated it.

[250]JS is adamant that she did not make this comment and is also adamant that she was not, as asserted by the claimant, hiding from the claimant. This is another instance of the claimant’s word against that of another person, and I prefer the evidence of JS to that of the claimant.

[251]Following this meeting, in a letter written on the 21 January 2023 the claimant tendered her resignation. The letter states as follows I am writing to give my formal notice for immediate resignation from HJS as of the 22 January 2023. I sincerely apologise for not being able to provide notice however due to the discrimination I have faced against my race and religion, they are protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and discrimination law. I have been the victim of unfair treatment, racism, defamation of character and invasion of privacy. It is really shocking that I have to leave this way but you left me no choice. Not only has this left me emotionally and mentally draining but you have hugely disadvantaged the child I support knowing this will have a detrimental effect on her. This will also result in an impact on me financially and I would like to discuss my pay with human resources. I attempted to resolve this with you but due to the threats and discovery I have been set up last Friday, I would prefer to speak to HR directly rather than with yourself, as it would be uncomfortable for me. I look forward to hearing from human resources

[252]Miss Ackland wrote to the claimant on the 24 January 2023 accepting her resignation and because the claimant had stated that she did not wish to speak to Miss Ackland, suggested a date and time for the claimant to meet Mr Merefield, the chair of governors. She stated the purpose of this meeting will be to undertake an exit interview which is an opportunity for you to discuss with the chair the issues surrounding your decision to resign from your role at the school.

[253]The claimant attended a meeting on Tuesday 31 January 2023 with her husband, and handed Mr Merefield a three page document, headed victim of unfair treatment/discrimination/racism/defamation of character/invasion of privacy in which she identified various things she said had happened and various allegations she was making.

[254]Mr Hossein gave evidence to the tribunal. He told the tribunal that he thought the meeting was unfriendly and that he got the impression that Mr Merefield was supportive of Miss Ackland and the school and not the claimant. He also says that Mr Merefield tried to get to the claimant to fill in the exit interview form.

[255]Since the purpose of the meeting was to carry out the exit interview, and that is what Mr Merefield believed he would be doing, it was not unreasonable for him to encourage the claimant to fill in the exit interview form. He accepts that he wanted to fill in the exit interview form, but it did not happen. He knew that the claimant had resigned, and he said he had seen her resignation letter and was expecting to discuss it with her.

[256]He told the tribunal and I accept, that the claimant handed him her three page document and that there was then a discussion in which the claimant gave him some further information.

[257]He denies that he made any comments to the effect that but Maria is not a racist and denies that at that stage he was supporting the school rather than the claimant.

[258]I accept his evidence that he suggested that they tried to talk through some of the concerns and that they did so, but he found it very difficult to pin down any actual incidents or dates. He described her as mixing up allegations and looping backwards and forwards.

[259]I accept his evidence that at the end of the interview, he said he was happy to look into any number of different allegations. I find that he recognised that the allegations she was making were very serious.

[260]Mr Merefield accepts that the claimant raised the question of CCTV.

[261]I find he went to the business managers office and looked at the CCTV whilst the claimant was there, and realised that none of the cameras recorded sound and that all of them except one were external. He said he went back to the claimant to tell her this in the hope that it would give her some reassurance.

[262]He also said he was shocked at the volume of allegations.

[263]Following the meeting Mr Merefield wrote to the claimant, and the claimant wrote back to him on to him on the 3 February, 7 February, 9 February the 17 February, 7 March and 16 March with additional allegations. He said in total she raised 43 allegations.

[264]I find that in her letter of resignation the claimant had raised allegations in 44 broad areas and that the additional communications which she sent in went far beyond those areas. I find that Mr Merefield took all those allegations seriously.

[265]Following advice Mr Merefield proposed to deal with the complaints by way of a grievance process. I find this was the appropriate way of dealing with matters even though that the claimant had resigned. Mr Merefield undertook the task of investigating and dealing with all of the allegations made by the claimant.

[266]The claimant asserts that the process of dealing with the grievance was biased and discriminatory.

[267]I find that the only example the claimant has given of any bias or discrimination is the initial comment she alleges that Mr Merefield made, that Maria Ackland was not a racist.

[268]The only other specific matter raised by the claimant is that Mr Merefield interviewed a large number of staff who the claimant had referred to, but who the claimant felt would not support her. She also refers to the failure to interview Jo Smith, despite the claimant raising her as a person to be spoken to.

[269]I find that the claimant did not complain about being asked to talk about her faith during a lesson in the long list of things she raised. She raised a different issue, about something she alleged Mrs Smith had said to her on 20 Jan 2023. I find that the claimant did not make a specific allegation about the way she was spoken to in that class until she raised a claim to the employment tribunal.

[270]In respect of the allegation that he did not speak to Miss Smith, I accept Mr Merefields's evidence to the tribunal that he had understood Mrs Hossain to be complaining about something which had happened on a specific date. He asked for a print out of the attendance of staff on that day and was given the attendance of Mrs. Smith, which showed that she was not working on that day. On that basis only, Mr Merefield decided that there was no need to interview her because the claimant must be wrong about something happening on that date.

[271]I accept that this was a genuine mistake. In all other respects I find that Mr Merefield carried out a very full and thorough investigation and I say more about this subsequently. Mr Merefield told the tribunal that it was subsequently realised by the appeal panel that he had been given a read out for the wrong date. At that point at the appeal stage Mrs. Smith was interviewed.

[272]The claimant accepted under cross examination that he had given her this explanation, but stated she did not believe it was true.

[273]I accept the evidence Mr Merefield has given to the employment tribunal and find that the mistaken date was the real reason Mrs Smith was not interviewed initially, and I conclude that that the decision not to interview Mrs. Smith was nothing to do with the claimant’s race or religion but was the result of a genuine error.

[274]I find, as Mr Merefield explained, that it was necessary for him to interview those named, firstly because allegations had been made in respect of some of them, but further because he needed to hear what they had to say. I find that he would have done the same in respect of any claim that he was investigating under the grievance policy, because it was the appropriate and fair thing to do. It was nothing to do with the claimant’s race or religion or the fact that she was making complaints about race and religion.

[275]In respect of the allegation that he asserted Maria is not a racist, Mr Merefield denies making the alleged comment. Mrs Hossein said it was made and also said that he kept saying that Maria was not a racist.

[276]Mr Hossein says that the interview was unsupportive but when asked under cross examination why he felt it was unsupportive, he referred to the questions; the way he talked and acted was not right, that he was not making them welcome and not making them feel that he would do his best. He made no reference whatsoever to the comment his wife alleged had been made, and nor did he suggest that Mr Merrifield had said on a number of occasions but Maria is not a racist. I am satisfied that if the comment had been made at all, and certainly if it had been made more than once as alleged by Mrs Hossein, that Mr Hossein would have mentioned it. I prefer the evidence of Mr Merefield that he did not make the comment and find that it was not made.

[277]The claimant was interviewed by Mr Merefield, in a meeting which took place by video .

[278]At the start of that meeting the claimant stated, in response to a question that she trusted Mr Merefield and was happy to speak to him. She admitted that she had made this comment and said she was not saying she did not trust him, but he had put doubts in her mind.

[279]The claimant also suggested that during the initial interview with Mr Merefield, that he had said that racism had been admitted, but that the grievance was dismissed.

[280]Mr Peck referred to the transcript of that meeting that took place subsequently by video between Mr Merrifield and the claimant. Mr Hossein told the ET that after that meeting, which he did not take any part in himself, his wife had seemed happy, and said to him that racism had been admitted.

[281]I find that the comment the claimant alleged to have been made, that racism was admitted, was not made. Either the claimant misunderstood what was being said, or she was lying at the time and is lying now.

[282]I can find no evidence of any bias whatsoever in the grievance process, and conclude that there was none.

[283]I find that Mr Merefield acted with conspicuous dedication, carrying out a very full and thorough investigation of each and every allegation made by the claimant. Having carried out some interviews, he then had a further discussion with the claimant so that she was kept up to date and so that she was able to provide any further information.

[284]Mr Merefield then produced a detailed grievance report in which he set out his findings on each and every allegation.

[285]I accept his description of his process as being one where he looked to see whether or not there was any independent evidence, either from a witness or from a contemporaneous document or otherwise which might support what the claimant was saying. Since in the majority of instances the claimant’s allegations were her word against somebody else’s word, there was no opportunity to triangulate or look to any independent evidence and in those circumstances, Mr Merefield did not accept that the claimant had demonstrated that the things that she said had happened, had in fact happened. He therefore dismissed her grievance.

[286]On the facts that I have found, the grievance procedure was carried out in a fair and open manner. It was detailed and careful and there is no evidence whatsoever that the claimant’s race or religion, or the fact that she was complaining about race discrimination or religious discrimination were the reason for any of the conclusions, or had any impact whatsoever on the process or the conclusions and I find they did not.

[287]The claimant fails to establish a prima facie case. I conclude that the questions Mr Merefield asked and the conclusions he drew from the information he had in front of him were not less favourable treatment on grounds of race or faith. The process was a full and fair one and was free of bias. I dismiss the claimants claims of unlawful discrimination in respect of the process.

[288]The claimant made no specific complaint about the appeal, but I have had the benefit of hearing evidence from Mr Angel who chaired the appeal. and the claimant had the opportunity to cross examine him.

[289]I find that he also took his role very seriously and following advice, considered that it was appropriate to carry out a full review of the process followed by Mr Merefield. In doing so, he and his panel asked for some further information and identified one error made by Mr Merefield in respect of Mrs. Smith to which I have referred earlier on.

[290]I find that the review carried out by him and his panel and the fact that there was no hesitation in asking further questions or interviewing further witnesses, is indicative of the way that this school and its governing body dealt with these serious allegations. The appeal was a full and fair process and upheld the findings made by Mr Merefield.

[291]One example is the allegation she made that somebody at the respondent staff had spoken to health assured ( the confidential staff well-being service provided by Hampshire County Council) about the claimant and that when she herself contacted them for advice and support that they already knew about her case. After some discussion, the claimant accepted that she did not know that this had happened and that she could not point to anything in particular, but she felt the way she was spoken to suggested somebody from staff had spoken to them.

[292]This is a specific allegation of race discrimination religious discrimination and harassment. There is no evidence that it happened and I find that it did not and dismiss that part of the claim. Key legal Principles. Direct discrimination

[293]When considering claims of direct race and religious discrimination, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, and when considering any claim of harassment related to race or related to religion the first stage is to establish the race and or religion relied upon by the claimant.

[294]In this case the claimant defines herself as British of Bangladeshi origin and as a simple Muslim. These were words which she used about herself.

[295]The legal provisions in the Equality Act 2010 provide, in respect of direct discrimination, that the claimant must prove that she has been treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic than the alleged discriminator treats or would treat others.

[296]Where a claim of harassment is made, it is for the claimant to prove on balance of probabilities that the person they allege has harassed them, has engaged in unwanted conduct related to their protected characteristic and that the conduct had the purpose or the effect of either violating the claimants dignities or of creating an intimidating hostile degrading humiliating or offensive environment for the claimant when considering whether or not the conduct alleged has the effect referred to the tribunal must take into account the claimants own perception of events the circumstances of the case and whether or not it is reasonable for the conduct to have the alleged effect.

[297]The burden of proof provisions state that where a claimant proves facts from which a tribunal could conclude, in the absence of a valid explanation, that there has been discrimination, that the respondent must provide a full explanation and that if they do not provide a wholly non-discriminatory explanation without the tribunal must make findings of discrimination.

[298]The first stage in proving any allegation of discrimination based on direct discrimination or harassment is therefore for the claimant to prove that the things that she says happened, did in fact happen. This is a question of fact for the employment tribunal and is dependent upon all the evidence that is placed before the tribunal.

[299]S. 13 of the Equality Act 2010 provides that a person is subject to direct discrimination if : “A person(a) (A) discriminates against another

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

[300]Under section 13, a comparison must be made between the treatment of the Claimant and another person, actual or hypothetical. When making that comparison, section 23(1) states “On a comparison of cases for the purposes of sections 13, 14 or 19, there must be no material difference between the circumstances relating to each case.”

[301]When considering whether or not direct discrimination had taken place in this case, we considered and applied Equality Act’s provisions concerning the burden of proof, s. 136 (2) and (3): “(2) If there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention occurred. (3) But subsection (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision.

[302]In applying the test and before the reverse burden of proof is triggered, I must consider whether, the facts we have found could lead to a conclusion that the prohibited factor, in this case the Claimants race or religious belief, may have or could have been the reason for any of the treatment we have found to have occurred.

[303]I approached the case by applying the test in Igen v Wong

[2005] EWCA Civ 142

, and took into account that in order to shift the burden of proof to the respondent, requiring a full explanation for any detriment or adverse treatment, the Claimant must prove more than a difference in treatment between himself and any comparator, actual or hypothetical, and a difference in protected characteristic. Before the burden of proof will shift, I must make some additional factual finding from which I may draw an inference that race, or religious belief was causative of that treatment in some way. Unreasonable treatment alone may not be enough, unless it is connected to the protected characteristic.

[304]I reminded myself that a successful direct discrimination claim depends on a tribunal being satisfied that the Claimant was treated less favourably than a comparator because of a protected characteristic. The Claimant bears the burden of proving both less favourable treatment and facts from which the tribunal could conclude in the absence of an explanation that the grounds for that treatment what's something to do with the Claimant’s race.

[305]The question of whether the treatment complained of is less favourable, is a question or fact for the tribunal.

[306]I also remind myself of Lord Browne-Wilkinson's reminder in Glasgow City Council v Zafar

[1998] ICR 120

, 125 that “Claims [of race and sex discrimination] present special problems of proof for complainants since those who discriminate on grounds of race or gender do not in general advertise their prejudices.”

[307]I reminded myself when considering whether the treatment the Claimant relied upon was as a matter of fact less favourable treatment that the legislative test is an objective one.

[308]The fact that a Claimant believes that she has been treated less favourably does not of itself establish that there has been less favourable treatment. I had in mind the judgments of the EAT in Burrett v West Birmingham Health Authority

1994 IRLR 7

, EAT, regarding a complaint by nurse that she had been treated less favourably by being required to wear a uniform which she could incident to be demeaning, and the judgement of the Court of Appeal in HM Land Registry v Grant (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening)

2011 ICR 1390

, CA, in which the Claimant’s complaint that he had been outed at work and that this was less favourable treatment was rejected, because but the Claimant had already made his sexual orientation public at a previous workplace.

[309]I also bore in mind however that the Claimant’s perception about her treatment and its effect on her will often have a significant influence on the Tribunals conclusions. In Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan

2001 ICR 1065

, HL (a victimisation case), the House of Lords determined that the Claimant was treated less favourably when the employer refused, for allegedly discriminatory reasons, to provide him with a reference. It was almost certain that, had he been given a reference, it would have been very unfavourable and their Lordships took into account that that from an objective point of view, he was better off without one. Nonetheless, he was held to have been treated less favourably than a comparator. There is, according to Lord Hoffmann, ‘a distinction between the question of whether treatment is less favourable and the question of whether it has damaging consequences’.

[310]On the other hand, it is not enough simply to show that the complainant has been treated differently. As Lord Scott said, ‘there must also be a quality in the treatment that enables the complainant reasonably to complain about it. I do not think, however, that it is appropriate to pursue the treatment and its consequences down to an end result in order to try and demonstrate that the complainant is, in the end, better off, or at least no worse off, than he would have been if he had not been treated differently. I think it suffices if the complainant can reasonably say that he would have preferred not to have been treated differently.’ Here, the Claimant wanted a reference to be given, even though he knew that it would be likely to contain adverse remarks about him, and withholding it meant that he had suffered less favourable treatment.

[311]The question that I had to consider in this case was whether or not any of the alleged treatment of the claimant happened, and if so, whether the treatment of the Claimant it was capable of amounting to less favourable treatment as a matter of fact. Harassment

[312]In Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal

[2009] IRLR 336

, The EAT (Underhill P presiding) explain that 'harassment' is defined in a way that focuses on three elements:(a) unwanted conduct;

(b) having the purpose or effect of either: (i) violating the claimant's dignity; or (ii) creating an adverse environment for him/her;

[313]I remind myself that although many cases will involve considerable overlap between the three elements identified in Dhaliwal, the EAT in that case held that it would normally be a 'healthy discipline' for tribunals to address each factor separately and ensure that factual findings are made on each of them.

[314]Therefore, when considering whether or not the claimant has proved a claim of harassment contrary to section 26 Equality Act 2010, not only did the conduct have to have been ‘unwanted’, but it also had to have been ‘related to’ a protected characteristic, which was a broader test than the ‘because of’ or the ‘on the grounds of’ tests in other parts of the Act (Bakkali-v-Greater Manchester Buses [2018]

UKEAT/0176/17

[315]As to causation, I reminded myself of the test set out in the case of Pembertonv-Inwood

[2018] EWCA Civ 564

. In order to decide whether any conduct falling within sub-paragraph (1) (a) has either of the prescribed effects under subparagraph (1) (b), a tribunal must consider both whether the victim perceived the conduct as having had the relevant effect (the subjective question) and (by reason of sub-section (4) (c)) whether it was reasonable for the conduct to be regarded as having that effect (the objective question). A tribunal also had to take into account all of the other circumstances (s. 26 (4)(b)). The relevance of the subjective question was that, if the Claimant had not perceived her the conduct to have had the relevant effect, then the conduct should not be found to have had that effect. The relevance of the objective question was that, if it was not reasonable for the conduct to have been regarded as having had that effect, then it should not be found to have done so.

[316]It was important to remember that the words in the statute imported treatment of a particularly bad nature; it was said in Grant-v-HM Land Registry

[2011] IRLR 748

, CA that “Tribunals must not cheapen the significance of these words. They are important to prevent less trivial acts causing minor upset being caught by the concept of harassment.” See, also, similar dicta from the EAT in Betsi Cadwaladr Health Board-v-Hughes

UKEAT/0179/13/JOJ

Discussion and conclusions

[317]The allegations made by the claimant against Miss Ackland her staff and Mr Merefield are serious ones. Without doubt the allegations have been difficult and upsetting for those who have found themselves accused of race discrimination and religious discrimination. The allegations which would be serious in any context will have a particular impact on those who work in a faith-based school, and who rightly pride themselves on an ethos of inclusion and respect for all faiths and none.

[318]Each of the respondent’s witnesses have dealt with cross examination and being challenged on the various issues on this case in a polite and dignified manner.

[319]The claimant has also worked extremely hard during the course of preparation for this hearing and during the course of the hearing itself, as a litigant in person with no particular legal expertise, who is suffering with a mental health impairment. She has not found the process easy, but has persevered and with the assistance from the court and with regular breaks, she has managed to deal with being cross examined and asking questions of the respondent.

[320]Mr Peck made careful and considered submissions both written and oral and has dealt with the claimant with kindness and courtesy.

[321]This is a sad case. The claimant asserts forcefully that she has been victim of persistent long term and unpleasant discrimination based on her race and her religion. The respondent and Miss Ackland in particular, assert that none of her allegations have any element of truth whatsoever

[322]Mrs Hossain has explained to the tribunal that she suffers with panic and anxiety, she has also says she has language difficulties and mental processing difficulties. Whilst I would observe that she is a British Asian and I understand English to be her first language, I accept that the way that she speaks and explains matters is sometimes difficult to follow. When listening to her evidence and when listening to her explaining her questions to the respondent witnesses, it was sometimes clear that she was struggling on occasions to mentally locate, the piece of information she required and to formulate questions or answers. She gave a great deal of detail and often moved from one event to another in a series of short, often unfinished sentences. When asked to focus and with significant assistance from the tribunal, the claimant was able to identify the matters which she wished to put to witnesses, was able to ask her questions, and when being asked questions, again with help and rephrasing, and breaks as required, she was able to give coherent answers.

[323]On some occasions, following lengthy attempts at clarification from myself it became clear that the allegation the claimant was making were not that she knew things had happened but that she believed that must be the explanation.

[324]One example is the allegation she made in respect of health assured, set out above, about which the claimant accepted that she felt the way she was spoken to suggested somebody from staff had spoken to them.

[325]This is a specific allegation of race discrimination religious discrimination and harassment there is no evidence that it happened and I find that it did not and dismiss that part of the claim.

[326]It is also indicative of the way that the claimant was thinking about the respondents and their treatment of her, and I have taken this into account when assessing the evidence and making my findings of fact.

[327]The claimant has expressed with great passion, her belief that she was discriminated against and treated less favourably because of her faith and religion. Whatever the explanation or reason, I conclude that she has been a wholly unreliable witness of truth, as indicated by the specific and particular examples set out within this judgement.

[328]I conclude from the facts found that the events which she has asserted happened and which the claimant relied on to found her for her discrimination claims, did not in fact happen.

[329]I conclude that the claimant was treated as a valued member of staff in her dayto-day dealings with the head teacher and her colleagues and that when issues arose, such as an issue of a complaint from a parent , Miss Ackland dealt with matters fairly and kindly.

[330]If there was any suggestion that any of the staff spoke harshly to the claimant, or spoke or behaved in a high-handed manner, Miss Ackland addressed it as soon as the claimant raised the matter. Whether the claimant was right or wrong, Miss Ackland was prepared to remind her staff of the school ethos and to reinforce the necessity of dealing with each other with kindness and respect.

[331]I find that in this school, that was the way that staff interacted with each other and with their leadership team on a day-to-day basis. I find that a central reason for this was strong leadership from Miss Ackland herself and from her team, that reinforced on a daily basis the principles and ethos of this school.

[332]On that basis I dismiss each and every one of the claimants claims of discrimination by direct discrimination and harassment on grounds of race and on grounds of faith. Employment Judge Rayner Dated: 02 April 2024 Note: Reasons for the decision having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a written request is received from either party within 14 days of the sending of this record of the decision.