Ms F Z Ouchrif v Aspire Housing and Personal Development: 8000708/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)

Case No 8000708/2025

Venue Glasgow

Hearing 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 24 September 2025

Between

Ms F Z OuchrifClaimant

Aspire Housing and Personal DevelopmentRespondent

Before

Employment Judge E Mannion

Ms L Reed (instructed by Solicitor) for respondent

Date 18 December 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]That the respondent harassed the claimant when she was subjected to mocking comments about her accent and was informed that if she wished to live in Scotland she should “learn how to speak Scottish”;

[2]That the respondent directly discriminated against the claimant when she was subjected to the treatment set out at 1 above.

[3]That the respondent victimised the claimant when it failed to provide an outcome to her grievance and failed to support her during her sickness absence; and

[4]The respondent is ordered to pay £16,433.42.

REASONS

[1]The claimant lodged a claim in the Employment Tribunal on 19 March 2025 claiming direct race discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The respondent resisted the claim.

[2]A joint bundle of documents was prepared for the hearing.

[3]The claimant made an application that three of her witnesses Lynsey Godfrey, Tracy Khalil and AbdelJalil Lmir give evidence by CVP as they work night shift and/or had childcare issues. There was no objection to this from the respondent and so this was granted. The parties discussed and agreed timetabling with the claimant giving her evidence first and her witnesses following the claimant’s evidence. Ultimately due to the length of the claimant’s evidence and witness availability, as the hearing progressed it was agreed that some of the witnesses would be taken out of order. The detail of this is below.

[4]At the outset of the hearing, I explained the process of the hearing for the benefit of the claimant, that she would proceed first, how examination in chief and cross examination worked, the types of questions that should be asked (open who what why when where questions on examination in chief with no leading questions on disputed matters). I explained the need to challenge the respondent’s evidence if it was not accepted and to put her case to the respondent’s witnesses. Breaks were given to the claimant prior to her cross examination of witnesses and before submissions so that she had time to prepare. At points during the questioning of witnesses – both in examination in chief and cross examination – the claimant was offered assistance in formulating questions. Breaks were also given to her during her own evidence when she became upset and also at times overwhelmed. This was to ensure that she could fully participate in the hearing.

[5]A list of issues was agreed at the preliminary hearing on 2 July 2025. Following this hearing the claimant provided further and better particulars of her claim. The issues to be determined were discussed at the outset of the hearing and it was agreed that the list of issues as per the preliminary hearing note and the specific allegations of discrimination in the further and better particulars were the issues for determination.

[6]I heard from the following witnesses in the following order:a. The claimant

b. Ms Lynsey Godfrey (witness for the claimant)

c. Ms Maria Thomspon (witness for the respondent)

d. Ms Tracy Khalil (witness for the claimant)

e. Mr XXXX Lmir (witness for the claimant)

f. Ms Carol Robertson (witness for the respondent)

g. Ms Elaine Farrell (witness for the respondent)

h. Ms Claire Marie McCabe (witness for the respondent)

[7]It was necessary to recall Ms Thompson to deal with some issues which arose from Ms Khalil’s evidence. There was no difficulty in doing so and this occurred on Monday 22 September while Ms Thompson was present and observing.

[8]Following Ms Thompson’s evidence she indicated that she would observe for the remainder of the hearing. Her evidence finished on Friday 19 September at in or around 15.40 and no witnesses were called after her that day. She attended at the Glasgow Tribunal Centre on Monday 22 September. The claimant indicated that she was very anxious about Ms Thompson being present in the room with her and that she was very uncomfortable with this. Ms Reed acknowledged the claimant’s concern but noted that this was an open public hearing. As open justice is a requirement under Rule 57 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 and there was no application for the hearing to be conducted in private, the Tribunal cannot exclude an observer. Given the concerns from the claimant, the fact that she was representing herself and so has an active role in the hearing, it was agreed that Ms Thompson would observe via CVP. This was done from an alternative hearing room on Monday 22 September and from home for the remainder of the hearing.

Relevant Law

[9]The burden of proof in discrimination cases is set out in Section 136 of the Equality Act which states that “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.”

[10]Section 136 is a two stage test. In the first stage, the claimant is required to set out their prima facie or first instance case of discrimination. If at the first stage an inference of discrimination could be drawn, then it must be drawn in the absence of an explanation to the contrary. The question for the Tribunal at the first stage is not whether they would find discrimination based on the facts, but whether they could. In such instances, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent for the second stage of the test, to prove, on the balance of probabilities, a non-discriminatory reason for conduct.

[11]If the claimant fails to discharge their burden at the first stage, that is they fail to make out a prima facie case of discrimination, then the burden does not fall to the respondent to provide a non-discriminatory explanation.

[12]The lead cases on the two stage test are Igen Ltd (formerly Leeds Careers Guidance) and ors v Wong and other cases

2005 ICR 931

, Lang v Manchester City Council

[2006] ICR 1519

EAT, Madarassy v Nomura International plc

[2007] ICR 876

, CA and Ayodele v Citylink Limited

[2018] ICR 748

, CA. The following principles can be derived from those cases:a. At the first stage, in deciding if a prima facie case is made, the Tribunal must consider both evidence adduced from the claimant and the respondent. If the respondent’s evidence is that the conduct in question did not occur or that it does not amount to less favourable treatment, then the Tribunal is entitled to have regard to that.

b. There is a vital distinction between fact or evidence from the respondent and the respondent’s explanation for the alleged discriminatory treatment. The explanation cannot be considered at the first stage. It only becomes relevant for consideration if the burden of proof passes to the respondent.

c. Proving a difference in treatment and having a protected characteristic is insufficient to pass the burden of proof to the respondent. Doing so would only prove a possibility of discrimination. Something more is required. (Madarassy)

[13]If a Tribunal moves automatically to stage two of the test, this is not automatically an error of law, so long as it proceeds on the assumption that the first stage has been met. There is no disadvantage for a claimant in doing this as the assumption is their prima facie case is made out. There is a disadvantage or risk for a respondent where their explanation is not accepted and so they fail to discharge a burden of proof which ought not to have been on it in the first place (Madarassy). The Tribunal is required to consider this when deciding to proceed automatically to the second stage.

[14]Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 states that “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.”

[15]When looking at comparators, Section 23 of the Equality Act 2010 provides that there should be “no material difference” between the claimant and comparator.

[16]Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 states that an employer harasses an employee if the employer “engages in unwanted conduct related to the protected characteristic” and this conduct has the purpose or effect of violating the employee’s dignity or “creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment” for the employee. Conduct done by an employee is deemed to be done by the employer.

[17]For a successful claim of harassment, the conduct must be unwanted. The test to determine if conduct is unwanted is a subjective one, that is the conduct must be unwanted by the employee as per Thomas Sanderson Blinds Ltd v English EAT 0316/10. The EAT in Insitu Cleaning Co Ltd v Heads

1995 IRLR 4

found that the word unwanted is the same as unwelcome or uninvited.

[18]The unwanted conduct must also relate to the protected characteristic. The wording of the legislation is not “because of” and so a broader approach must be taken. The conduct must be looked at in the round to establish if there is a relationship with the protected characteristic.

[19]The EAT in Carozzi v University of Herefordshire

2024 EAT 169

underlined that while direct discrimination requires a mental element, this not in consideration when deciding if conduct is related to the protected characteristic. That case considered whether comments on a person’s accent were related to race. Judge Taylor gave the following view: “An accent may be an important part of a person’s national or ethnic identity. Comments about a person’s accent could be related to the protected characteristic of race. Criticism of such an accent could violate dignity. Obviously, that does not mean that any mention of a person's accent will amount to harassment. Consideration would have to be given in any case to whether a comment about an accent was unwanted, related to race and to the other elements of section 26 EQA; such as whether the conduct had the purpose or effect of violating dignity.”

[20]The second limb of Section 26 is that the conduct must have the purpose or effect of violating the employee’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them. Conduct which has that effect, even if that was not the intention, will come within this Section and be unlawful. In considering the effect of the conduct, the Tribunal must have regard to the perception of the employee, the other circumstances of the case and whether it’s reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. The latter is an objective test, while a subjective test is applied to the perception and other circumstances. Lord Justice Underhill in Pemberton v Inwood

2018 ICR 1291

CA provided guidance on the use of the subjective and objective tests when he stated “The relevance of the subjective question is that if the claimant did not perceive their dignity to have been violated or an adverse environment created, then the conduct should not be found to have had that effect. The relevance of the objective question is that if it was not reasonable for the conduct to be regarded as violating the claimant’s dignity or creating an adverse environment for him or her, then it should not be found to have done so.”

[21]Section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 states that “A person(a) (A) victimises another person

(b) (B) if A subjects B to a detriment because (a) B does a protected act, or (b) A believes that B has done, or may do, a protected act.”

[22]A protected act is outlined in Section 27(1) and 27(2) and is as follows:a. Bringing proceedings under the Equality Act;

b. Giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under the Equality Act;

c. Doing any other thing for the purpose of or in connection with the Equality Act;

d. Making an allegation that A or another person has contravened the Equality Act.

[23]There is no definition of what constitutes a detriment in the Equality Act but it is a common term in employment legislation. The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Code of Practice on Employment outlines at paragraph 9.8 that a detriment is “anything which an individual concerned might reasonable consider changed their position for the worse or put them at a disadvantage.” In De Souza v Automobile Association

1986 ICR 514

CS the Court of Appeal confirmed that a detriment is where an employee is “disadvantaged in the circumstances and conditions of work”. While this is considered from the point of view of the employee, it must be a reasonable position to hold. It is not necessary for an employee to show that they have suffered a physical or economic condition as per the House of Lords in Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary

2003 ICR 337

HL. They also do not need to establish that the employer’s actions had consequences for them in respect of their contract of employment, such as a demotion. It is enough for an employee to have a sense of grievance, and this must be reasonably held.

[24]For a successful claim of victimisation, the detriment must be ‘because of’ the protected act. This is not a ‘but for’ test. The protected acts do not need to be the sole reason for the detrimental treatment. Rather, the protected acts need to have a “significant influence” on the respondent’s actions for the victimisation to be made out as per Nagarajan v London Regional Transport

1999 ICR 877

HL. This phrase was discussed further in Igen Ltd (formerly Leeds Careers Guidance) and ors v Wong and other cases

2005 ICR 931

where it was found that a significant influence is an influence which is more than trivial.

[25]Section 124 of the Equality Act 2010 provides that the Tribunal may award compensation in successful discrimination cases.

[26]In Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No.2)

2003 ICR 318

, CA, the Court of Appeal set out three compensation bands – the lower band for one off or minor conduct, the middle band for conduct which is not sufficient to fit into the upper band, and the upper band for the most serious conduct. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the bands allow for flexibility so that the Tribunal can award what is fair, reasonable and just.

[27]Additional guidance has more recently been provided by the EAT in Eddie Stobart Limited v Miss Caitlin Graham

[2025] EAT 14

which provides a summary of the case law on awards of compensation and guidance on what should be considered by the Tribunal when assessing the level of compensation to award.

[28]The Employment Tribunal (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996 provides that the Tribunal should consider if interest should be calculated and added to the award of compensation. Where interest is not awarded, the Tribunal should set out their reasons for not doing so. Submissions

[29]Both parties made submissions at the conclusion of the evidence. For brevity, these are not included in detail here but for the avoidance of doubt, these submissions were carefully considered when coming to the decision below. Observations on the evidence

[30]The claimant gave her evidence in a clear manner and answered questions to the best of her ability. English was not her first language and she presented as nervous and emotional. She was in evidence for almost two and a half days. She had difficulty with specific dates, particularly around November/December 2024 but was open about this and explained why she believed things occurred on specific dates with reference to emails or meetings. She stated that she prepared a chronology for herself based on emails and meeting dates and that she may well be incorrect about specific dates but that she was giving her evidence to the best of her knowledge. It is within judicial knowledge that memories of distressing events are not always linier. I found on the whole that the claimant was credible but preferred the respondent’s timeline in respect of the mediation meeting and when it was alleged Ms Thompson made the comment “if you want to live in Scotland, you have to learn how to speak Scottish” as there was contemporaneous documentation to assist. I did not find claimant’s timeline was an attempt to mislead the tribunal but was simply a genuine error on her part.

[31]Both Ms Godfrey and Mr Lmir answered questions clearly. So too did Ms Khalil. It was submitted by the respondent that Ms Khalil’s examination in chief appeared to be prepared and so should not be relied upon. I am conscious that for witnesses to come and speak about events which occurred almost a year ago, there will be an element of preparation by that witness in recalling what occurred and setting this out for themselves so that they can answer questions. There was no suggestion that the claimant provided a script or talking points for Ms Khalil. In any event I would not have accepted such a submission, particularly as Ms Khalil had a different view to the claimant on who suggested she take up the role in Paisley Road West. I found that Ms Khalil was a credible and reliable witness.

[32]Ms Thompson also presented as a nervous and emotional witness. There was a clear dispute in evidence about whether Ms Thompson made remarks to the claimant about her accent and living in Scotland. Ms Thompson denied these and her denials were consistent with her denials in the internal investigation. I did not find Ms Thompson to be a credible or reliable witness however. Her position on her communication and management style differed to the respondent position. All witnesses who were employed by the respondent, but for Ms Thompson, described her communication style as aggressive and abrasive or rude. When asked by Ms Reed about her communication style Ms Thompson stated she tries to adjust it to everyone and that she usually stays calm. When the claimant put it to her that there was also a complaint from a supported individual about the way Ms Thompson spoke to her, which was upheld by the respondent, Ms Thompson said that she did not agree with what the complainant said about her or the fact that the respondent upheld the complaint. I found that the lack of insight and the inability to admit to or accept that her communication style was aggressive or abrasive impacted on her credibility and the reliability of her evidence on the allegations of discrimination.

[33]The remaining respondent witnesses were all clear in their evidence and answered questions to the best of their memory. There was further issue in dispute as to when the respondent via Ms Robertson became aware of Ms Thompson’s racist conduct towards the claimant. Ms Robertson was definite in her evidence that she only became aware of the racial component on 17 December when the claimant sent her the written grievance. Reviewing her evidence as a whole alongside the contemporaneous documentation, I found this not to be the case. Ms Robertson’s evidence was that encouraged the claimant to put her complaint about Ms Thompson in writing after she learned of the “learn Scottish” comment and the claimant did so that day, 17 December. On 13 December, however Ms Robertson emailed the claimant encouraging her to put her grievances with Ms Thompson in writing. The claimant was on annual leave when that email was sent, and met with Ms Robertson the week before (5 December) to inform her of the most recent discriminatory conduct by Ms Thompson, the “learn Scottish” comment. Ms Robertson was at pains to say in her evidence that she could do nothing about Ms Thompson unless complaints were formalized in writing. This was why she encouraged the claimant to put her concerns in writing. That encouragement began before the 17 December as seen by email of 13 December. This email was not in response to earlier correspondence from the claimant and so on the balance of probabilities, it is a follow up from their meeting on 5 December. However, I found that Ms Robertson was aware before 5 December of the racist conduct. A chronology that formed part of Ms Bell’s investigation noted that on 28 November Ms Robertson had a call with the claimant who was in tears and stated that Ms Thompson mocked her accent. Relying on the contemporaneous documents, I found therefore that the respondent was aware of the racial conduct well before 17 December. This is not to say that Ms Robertson was lying when she gave her evidence. Rather, it is an acknowledgement of the fallibility of memory. I therefore preferred the evidence of the claimant on when the respondent became aware of Ms Thompson’s racist conduct towards her.

[34]There were some other minor areas of dispute but as they were not material to the legal questions, I have not made specific findings on them.

Findings of fact

[35]I made the following findings of fact after considering the evidence on the balance of probability.

[36]The claimant was employed as a night shift support worker in the respondent organisation, located at Bellisle House. The respondent houses and supports women who are unhoused, many of whom have mental health and drug addiction issues. The claimant’s role on night shift was to support these women, complete reports on any incidents via a program called Better Futures, and clean the communal areas within Belleisle House including the kitchens and stairs.

[37]The claimant worked a four on four off shift pattern. She worked in a pair of two. For the first two shifts of her working pattern she worked alongside Tracy Khalil, night support worker. The second two shifts she worked alongside Maria Thompson, coordinator. The other employee who worked the same shift pattern but the opposite shifts to the claimant was Lynsey Godfrey, night support worker. Ms Godfrey working alongside Ms Thompson while the claimant was working with Ms Khalil and with Ms Khalil while the claimant was working with Ms Thompson. Ms Khalil was the only night support worker who did not work with Ms Thompson.

[38]Ms Thompson joined the respondent organisation on or around November 2022. As coordinator, she had some managerial responsibilities over the claimant and colleagues.

[39]Ms Robertson joined the organisation in April 2024 as Team Leader and was directly above Ms Thompson in the management hierarchy. She worked Monday to Friday, 9-5. As a result, the overlap with the night shift was minimal. At times she came to work early or worked later so that she could engage with the night shift. Above Ms Robertson in the management structure was Una Munroe Regional Mananger. Ms Munroe did not have interaction with the night shift workers or Ms Thompson.

[40]In or around August 2024, Mrs Roberson began informal supervision of Ms Thompson. There was not a single catalyst for this but instead a buildup of issues surrounding her behaviour and her standard of work. Her colleagues described her as lacking in empathy with the supported individuals and aggressive in her manner. Mrs Robertson shadowed Ms Thompson for a number of shifts to assist her learning and development. Ms Thompson did not display aggressive behaviour in front of Ms Robertson during these supported sessions but in any event Ms Robertson described her as authoritative, aggressive and abrasive in her approach to both staff and supported individuals. These shadowed shifts ended at some point in September 2024, specifically before the claimant’s employment began on 30 September. This was due to pregnancy related illness on the part of Mrs Roberson rather than there no longer being a need for such support.

[41]The claimant undertook approximately 9 shifts alongside Ms Thompson in October and November 2024. During these shifts, Ms Thompson would regularly inform the claimant that she could not understand what she was saying. She would mock the claimant’s pronunciation of words and laugh at her manner of pronunciation.

[42]No other employees were present while the claimant was subjected to this conduct. Other employees were however aware of Ms Thompson’s reputation of racist conduct. Ms Godfrey was aware that a previous employee who was a person of colour left their job with the respondent due to Ms Thompson’s racist treatment of her. Ms Khalil, a white British woman married to an Asian man, decided that she did not want to work on a shift with Ms Thompson because of her racist attitude, although she had no direct experience of this. Ms Robertson was aware that some staff had “grumblings” about Ms Thompson but not that Ms Thopson engaged in racist behaviour.

[43]The respondent organizes its staff via a rota. This is a rolling rota over a period of approximately 12 weeks. When it comes to the Christmas period, being the two weeks taking in Christmas Day and the New Year, there is a deviation from the rota. A separate two week rota is prepared for this festive period. Mrs Robertson ordinarily has responsibility for drafting this rota. It was decided that Ms Thompson would draft the night shift rota for the two week festive period (“the festive rota”) in the first instance. Ms Robertson had final approval of her proposals. The night shift were invited to put forward their preferences of whether they wanted to work Christmas eve/Christmas Day or New Year’s eve/ New Year's day. Ms Thompson asked Ms Robertson if annual leave could be allocated over the two week period to assist and Ms Robertson agreed. Ms Robertson understood that if doing so, Ms Thompson would ask the employee in the first instance and not direct them to use annual leave on specific days. The latter in fact occurred. Drafting and finalizing the festive rota was not an easy task and Ms Thompson found it stressful. A number of versions were drafted due to errors and/or complaints from the night shift. The final festive rota was not finalized until December 2024.

[44]Ms Thompson drafted a version of the festive rota which was made available to the night shift on or around 19 November 2024. The claimant accessed this during her shift and saw that she had been directed to take annual leave at a point during the two week rota. She was upset about this as she had been planning on using her leave when her mother visited and was awaiting confirmation of her mother’s dates. This was something she had previously discussed with Ms Thompson. She was the only member of the night shift who was directed to take annual leave on this rota. The claimant raised the issue with Ms Thompson who told her, in an aggressive fashion, words to the effect “I have the authority to allocate annual leave.” Ms Thompson was not calm during this conversation and instead was aggressive. The claimant was ‘devastated’ by the conversation and the manner in which Ms Thompson spoke to her.

[45]At the 06.14 on 20 November and before the end of shift where the above altercation took place, Ms Thompson emailed Ms Robertson to inform her of what had happened. She explained that the claimant was unhappy with the festive rota and accused Ms Thompson of discrimination against her. The allegation of discrimination is mentioned three times in this email, although it is not qualified by the type of discrimination eg race. She stated that it was a very serious accusation. She set out her version of the discussion and that the claimant would not listen to her explanations for the festive rota.

[46]At 07.52 on the same date, the claimant emailed Ms Robertson with the subject line ‘request for help’. She explained that she raised her concerns about the festive rota with Ms Thompson who responded to say she had the authority to unilaterally assign leave and that during the heated exchange which followed, the claimant was accused of being aggressive and untruthful. She stated that this is not the first time she has experienced difficulties with Ms Thompson and that there are tensions which make the work environment stressful.

[47]Ms Robertson responded to the claimant by email at 10.56 on 20 November apologizing and giving some broader context for the festive rota including the difficulties in finalizing this. She stated that she did not want staff to feel disrespected and asks the claimant to call her for a chat. A lengthy call took place between the claimant and Ms Robertson wherein the claimant spoke about what had occurred during the previous night shift. Ms Roberston assured her that the claimant would not be required to take annual leave during the Christmas period if she did not want to. The claimant was very upset during the call and was crying. She told Ms Robertson that Ms Thompson regularly mocked her accent and her pronunciation. She informed Ms Robertson that she could not work alongside Ms Thompson any more. Ms Robertson explained that a transfer would be difficult to organize and to leave it with her.

[48]Ms Robertson also spoke with Ms Thompson at some point on the 20 November and Ms Thompson reiterated that the claimant accused her of discrimination and that this was a serious accusation to make.

[49]Ms Robertson then emailed Ms Munroe on the same day to alert her to what had occurred. In that email she stated the following: “I had a lengthy conversation with [the claimant] and she was distraught to be honest. She feels that Maria is very disrespectful in the way she speaks, can no longer sleep before her night shifts with her, it’s affecting her wellbeing, she feels degraded. All quite concerning. She says this has been a build up for a few weeks and she feels like Maria treats her very poorly. Zohra says she has no issue with the rota, it’s just Maria telling her that apparently I have given authority to make staff take annual leave without their permission.” The email went on to say that the claimant did not want to come to work if on shift with Ms Thompson as this is affecting her overall health. Ms Robertson stated that she could ask Ms Khalil to swap shifts in January but she (Ms Khalil) may not be willing to do so. Ms Munroe replied at 14.06 that day to say “similar issues have come up with Maria in the past” and suggested a call to discuss.

[50]On 26 November the claimant emailed Ms Robertson stating it was a followup to a previous discussion to swap shifts with Ms Khalil. She explained that she was experiencing significant difficulties working with Ms Thompson, that her behaviour left her feeling degraded and that a shift swap would improve the work environment. Ms Robertson replied “Leave it with me” and refers to a meeting to take place on Thursday.

[51]The claimant’s shift pattern was not changed and she continued to be rota’d to work alongside Ms Thompson for two nights during every four night shift.

[52]A meeting was organised to take place on 28 November 2024 at the beginning of the night shift. Ms Robertson viewed this as a mediation meeting and anticipated that she, the claimant and Ms Thompson would sit together and discuss what had occurred on 19/20 November. It was organized by phone rather than email. The word mediation was not used by Ms Robertson in organizing this meeting. The claimant attended and spoke to Ms Robertson at length setting out her concerns with Ms Thompson, including that Ms Thompson mocked her accent and her pronunciation. She did not have the same understanding or expectation of what this meeting would entail as Ms Robertson. At the end of the discussion Ms Robertson asked her if she wanted Ms Thompson to join and the claimant stated that if it was not necessary to do so, she would prefer that Ms Thompson not attend. Ms Robertson concluded her meeting with the claimant. She did not inform the claimant that the purpose of the meeting was for the three of them to discuss the incidents together. Ms Robertson then spoke with Ms Thompson. Following this, she informed the claimant she had spoken to Ms Thompson and that she ‘would be fine’ on her shift that night.

[53]On the shift beginning on evening of 28 November, Ms Thompson once again took issue with the claimant’s accent. When the claimant said words to the effect “I’m sorry I don’t speak Scottish enough for you” Ms Thompson replied “If you want to live in Scotland, you have to learn how to speak Scottish.”

[54]At 07.52 on 28 November and so before meeting with Ms Robertson or the further incident of discrimination, the claimant emailed Elaine Farrell, Team Leader in Paisley Road West about a transfer to her service. HR were copied into this email. The reason given for the transfer was a change of pace and a shorter commute. An interview was arranged for 1pm on 4 December at Paisley Road West and this was conducted by Ms Farrell, another colleague and a supported individual. When travelling home from the interview, the claimant who lives in Springburn got caught in traffic. A night shift ends at 7.30am and the claimant needs to be home to let her husband leave for work at 8am. Her children are of an age that they cannot be left by themselves. The claimant came to the conclusion that the transfer to Paisley Road West would not work given the potential for traffic jams on her route.

[55]The claimant spoke to Ms Khalil about swapping shifts and Mrs Khalil informed her she was not willing to work with Ms Thompson as she heard Ms Thompson was racist. She informed the claimant that as she has an Asian husband and mixed race children, she did not want to work alongside Ms Thompson. The two came to an agreement that Ms Khalil would take up the role in Paisley Road West so that the claimant could take up her shifts. Ms Khalil emailed Ms Farrell on 4 December expressing an interest in transferring to that service. The claimant and Ms Khalil met with Ms Robertson on or around 5 December to inform her of the agreement. Both women informed Ms Robertson of Ms Thompson’s racist attitude. The claimant informed Ms Robertson about the comments made by Ms Thompson about choosing to live in Scotland and ‘speaking Scottish’. Ms Robertson urged the claimant to put this in writing.

[56]On 5 December a supported individual, Ms Hopkins, raised a complaint about Ms Thompson stating that she was unhappy in how Ms Thompson spoke to her, describing it as cruel and speaking to her like a child. She also stated that she did not like the way Ms Thompson behaved in Bellisle House and that she (Ms Thompson) did not respect the supported women. This complaint was referred to Ms Robertson who spoke with Ms Hopkins by phone on 13 December to confirm the details of the complaint.

[57]Ms Robertson emailed Ms Thompson on 9 December inviting her to a Performance Improvement meeting on 20 December. A Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”) was drafted by Ms Robertson. The outset of the PIP noted that “there have been consistent concerns surrounding Maria’s conduct around staff and the people we support” and in the body of the PIP Ms Thompson was reminded to be “mindful of her body language and the way she speaks to staff as this can come off as authoritative.” She is required to “show more empathy and understanding to those who have different cultures and face barriers here at Bellisle” and to “change the use of her language, educating herself on current terminology and show an understanding as to why this may be offensive.” The PIP meeting ultimately took place on 10 January 2025.

[58]On 13 December at 13.02pm Ms Robertson emailed the claimant asking her for “details of all grievances with” Ms Thompson including “details of what she has done with yourself and also how you have witnessed her with the people we support.” The claimant was on annual leave from 9 December returning to work on the 16 December.

[59]The claimant replied to the above email on 17 December setting out the detail of her grievance with Ms Thompson as requested by Ms Robertson. It set out five areas of concern: forced annual leave; accusations of aggressiveness and untruthfulness; pattern of bullying and unprofessional conduct; discrimination based on accent; and treatment of supported women. It stated that Ms Thompson’s conduct created a hostile and discriminatory work environment and that the claimant experienced increased stress, anxiety and difficulty focusing on her work. She stated she was concerned that the situation will deteriorate if not addressed.

[60]At this time, the claimant was distressed about attending work alongside Ms Thompson. She was regularly in a state of panic before starting a shift with her. Her sleep began to be affected. She was often in tears after her shifts with Ms Thompson.

[61]Ms Robertson acknowledged this email by letter dated 18 December stating that it would be taken seriously and full investigated, although this might not start until January due to the festive period. The letter ends with the assurance that if the claimant has any other concerns, not to hesitate to contact Ms Robertson.

[62]During a call between Ms Munroe and Claire Marie McCabe, Head of HR on 20 December to discuss the claimant’s grievance, it was agreed that Ms Thompson would be removed from the workplace. This was not a disciplinary suspension but rather paid leave. It was not done under a particular policy or procedure.

[63]The claimant’s grievance was viewed as a complaint. It was not dealt with under a particular policy or procedure. It was a grievance and should have been dealt with as such.

[64]Lynsey Bell was identified as the investigator of the claimant’s grievance while Ms Robertson was identified to investigate Ms Hopkin’s complaint. Ultimately Ms Hopkin's complaint was passed to Ms Elaine Farrell at Paisley Road West for investigation due to concerns of impartiality raised by Steven Fullerton, Ms Thompson’s trade union representative.

[65]Ms Bell attempted to meet with Ms Thompson on 13 January to begin her investigation but Mr Fullerton, trade union representative maintained that Ms Thompson should not be spoken to until Ms Bell met with the claimant. The meeting with Ms Thompson did not proceed on that date.

[66]Ms Bell then met with the claimant on 21 January. The meeting took place at Garscube. While waiting for Ms Bell, other employees of the respondent at Garscube asked the claimant if she was there to discuss Ms Thompson. During that meeting the claimant stated that Ms Thompson has mocked her accent from the first shift they worked together. This happened many times and on one specific occasion she told the claimant that if she wanted to live in Scotland she should learn the language. She outlined that Ms Thompson micromanaged her, told her that her snacks were disgusting when offered, and that the claimant left the office in tears on 19/20 November due to how Ms Thompson spoke to her about the festive rota. She stated that Ms Thompson previously told her that she did not like people of colour. The claimant also set out concerns about Ms Thompson’s interactions with the supported women, particularly those of colour.

[67]On 27 January, Ms Bell emailed the claimant asking if she could be more specific and provide dates for the various incidents referred to at the meeting. The claimant replied on 29 January explaining that she did not recall specific dates and that they cover most of her shifts with Ms Thompson. She stated that she was suffering from stress and anxiety and to try and pinpoint specific dates was impacting on her mental health.

[68]During January Ms Thompson was on paid leave. She continued to be on the rota and would be removed by Ms Robertson, sometimes at the last minute. The claimant had access to the rota and could see Ms Thompson being rota’d on and then removed. This caused considerable distress for the claimant.

[69]At the end of January, while attending fire warden training, the claimant spoke to Ms Robertson and asked her if there was any update and whether Ms Thompson was returning to work. Ms Roberson informed her that she had no update for her.

[70]On 1 February, the claimant was informed by Ms Godfrey that Ms Thompson was returning to work the following week. This caused the claimant to have a mental breakdown. She emailed Ms Robertson and advised that she had learned Ms Thompson was returning to work and that this had “significantly worsened” her mental health and triggered a relapse. She described feeling very low, overwhelmed and unable to think positively and finding it difficult to manage her mental health. She indicated that she was unable to undertake her shift that night. Ms Robertson replied asking how she could support the claimant and asking who told her about Ms Thompson’s return. The claimant replied that Ms Godfrey shared this information with her. She also stated that “this situation with Maria is causing so much stress and making it difficult for me to think clearly.” The following day, the claimant attended at her GP and was diagnosed with depression, anxiety and stress. She provided an update to the respondent on 25 February stating that the difficulties with her mental health were directly caused by workplace discrimination, bullying and mishandling of her grievances.

[71]The claimant’s absence continues to date for depression and anxiety. She was prescribed anti-depressants and her medication dose has increased over the months. At the date of the hearing, she underwent therapy and was waiting for a date for one to one therapy via Lifelink, an NHS organisation. She has had no previous issues with her mental health. She continues to experience low mood, sleeplessness, lack of interest in life generally and spends her time in bed in a dark room. Her confidence has been severely impacted. This has impacted on her family life and how she interacts with her children. Her confidence has been impacted and is very low.

[72]On 4 February, the claimant emailed Ms Bell asking for an update on the investigation and whether a decision was made. Ms Bell did not respond to the claimant. She forwarded the email to Ms Robertson stating that she did not know why the claimant was emailing her seeing as the investigation was confidential.

[73]Ms Bell met with Ms Thompson on 13 February to discuss the claimant’s complaint. Ms Thompson denied any discriminatory comments in relation to the claimant’s accent or telling her that she needed to change her accent if she wanted to work in Scotland. Ms Thompson also gave an account of what had occurred with the Christmas rota and that she was trying to be fair. Not all aspects of what the claimant set out in her meeting with Ms Bell were put to Ms Thompson.

[74]Ms Bell took up a chronology of events from Ms Robertson at some stage during the investigation process but did not speak to Ms Robertson. Ms Bell did not speak to any other employees about Ms Thompson’s behaviour or whether she displayed racist behaviour towards them or others.

[75]Ms Bell completed her investigation and drafted a report dated 24 February concluding it was difficult to find the discriminatory behaviour and racist remarks occurred because “there has only been Maria and Zohra on shift so no evidence that this has actually happened.” The report is not particularly comprehensive and does not provide a conclusion of all five areas of concern raised by the claimant. The report was passed to Ms McCabe for her sign off who included an outcome that the PIP be reviewed and updated. She also recommended mediation take place before Ms Thompson returned to Belleisle. These recommendations were dated 22 March.

[76]On 24 February, the claimant emailed Ms Robertson and Ms McCabe with a copy of her new fit note, for a further five weeks, stating that her ongoing mental health challenges were a result of her experiences at work. Ms Robertson replied the following day asking the claimant to send fit notes just to her in the future. The email also included the telephone details of Health Assured, an external organisation who provides support. The claimant responded on the same day stating that her ongoing ill health was “a direct result of workplace discrimination, bullying and mishandling of my grievances. The situation that led to my current condition has yet to be adequately addressed and this remains my primary concern. I hope that this will be taken into serious consideration as part of the ongoing investigation. Please let me know if there are any updates regarding the resolution of my complaints.” The claimant is not provided with the requested update.

[77]On 11 March, the claimant emailed Ms McCabe asking for an update on when her grievance might be concluded. The claimant set out again the impact the situation had on her mental health and asked for clarity on when the investigation might be complete and when discussions regarding resolution might begin. The email also made reference to the claimant lodging an Early Conciliation claim. Ms McCabe responded on 19 March noting that she had been ‘extremely busy’ and had IT issues. She explained that the investigation has been delayed due to annual leave, rota’d days off and sickness. She went on to state “I am sure you will understand I cannot divulge information relating to the investigation even when a conclusion/outcome has been reached I will not be able to share this with you. The reason for this being employee confidentiality. Once a conclusion/outcome has been reached I am happy to meet with you and Claire Robertson or possibly Una Munroe (depends on when Claires wee boy makes his entrance to the world) to discuss how your complaint was handled.” She also stated she anticipates a conclusion in the “next few weeks” and asked if there is anything else the claimant wanted to add to her statement to do so before 9am on 21 March. Ms McCabe then made reference to the Acas process.

[78]The claimant responded on 20 March stating that given the ongoing delays and impact on her well-being she had already submitted a claim to the Employment Tribunal. This was done on 19 March.

[79]On the 19 March, Ms McCabe wrote to Ms Thompson organising an investigation outcome meeting on either the 27 or 28 March. The letter stated that “this meeting is essential to conclude the investigation process and discuss next steps.” A further letter is sent to Ms Thompson inviting her to an outcome meeting on 27 March. At some point in March or April, the respondent and Ms Thompson came to an arrangement whereby her employment with the respondent terminated by mutual agreement.

[80]The claimant did not receive an outcome to her grievance. She was unaware until receiving the documentation as part of the hearing process that the respondent did not uphold her complaints.

[81]The claimant continued to submit her fit notes to Ms Robertson. On 6 May, the claimant sent her fit note to Ms Robertson, Ms Fernandez and Mr Gonzalez, the latter both coordinators at Bellisle. Mr Gonzalez acknowledged receipt of this and wished her well on 7 May.

[82]During sickness absence, the respondent contacts an employee once per week and has a meeting with them on a four weekly basis. These welfare checks are the responsibility of the Team Leader. When an employee is on long term sick, the respondent’s HR also has a role in absence management. To date, the claimant has not received weekly or four-weekly welfare checks. She has not had any absence management meetings with the respondent. She has not been referred to occupational health. There have been no attempts to assist the claimant’s return to work.

[83]The claimant was in receipt of statutory sick pay since February 2025 as the respondent requires a years’ service before occupational sick pay applies. The respondent also operates a system whereby employees are unpaid for the first four days of sick leave.

[84]Ms Thompson denied that she subjected the claimant to this conduct, stating that she would not say these things. In particular, she gave evidence that given her dyslexia, she often says things wrong and would not mock someone for this.

[85]All witnesses were clear in their evidence that Ms Thompson was a difficult individual who spoke brashly, abrasively, aggressively or authoritatively to others. Ms Godfrey in evidence described Ms Thompson as lacking in empathy. This was not challenged. The PIP made specific reference this.

[86]I considered the unchallenged evidence of Ms Godfrey and Ms Khalil that they were aware Ms Thompson had a reputation for racist conduct. Neither women had direct experience of Ms Thompson’s conduct towards the claimant but believed that Ms Thompson engaged in the unwanted conduct.

[87]I found on the balance of probabilities that Ms Thompson engaged in the alleged conduct. I found her denials unreliable as she was unable to admit that her communication style was abrasive, aggressive or authoritative when almost every other witness who encountered her found this to be the case. It was a view she would have been aware of given the informal support and PIP. That combined with a view from both respondent and claimant witnesses that she lacked empathy, an unchallenged position from claimant witnesses that they were aware of previous racist behaviour and a consistent position from the claimant from the informal complaint stage to the hearing led me to determine that this conduct had occurred.

[88]I found that the Ms Thompson mocked the claimant’s accent by stating that she could not understand her, by laughing at the pronunciation of words and by telling her “if you want to live in Scotland you have to learn how to speak Scottish.” I found that the former two examples occurred regularly on the shifts that the claimant and Ms Thompson undertook together in October and November 2024 while the latter occurred on 28 November 2024. Was the conduct unwanted?

[89]On a subjective view of the conduct, I found that it was unwanted by the claimant. The comments were made directly to her, about how she spoke. The claimant had not asked for feedback on her pronunciation or manner of speaking. The comments and laughter came unprompted from Ms Thompson. The comments were not friendly and helpful but mocking in tone. Was the conduct related to the protected characteristic of race?

[90]When considering this, I noted that the comments and conduct did not directly relate to the claimant’s North African/Moroccan race. There is however a connection to her race, as English was not the claimant’s first language. It is within judicial knowledge that Arabic and French are spoken in Morocco and that English is not an official language of the country. In particular, the statement about living in Scotland is directly related to the fact that the claimant as an immigrant has chosen to live here rather than in her home country of Morocco. As this is not a because of test, I found that the conduct was related to the protected characteristic of race for the reasons set out above. The purpose of the conduct

[91]Ms Thompson denied the conduct and so did not provide any direct evidence on the intent behind it. The effect of the unwanted conduct

[92]Finally I considered the effect of the conduct. In this I considered the perception of the claimant, the circumstances of the case and whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have the stated effect.

[93]The first part of the test is a subjective one focused on the claimant’s own perception of the conduct. The claimant gave evidence that because Ms Thompson so regularly mocked her accent and pronunciation, she found shifts with her unbearable. She described how she was trying to fit into a new job and with new colleagues and this impacted that. She described being intimidated by Ms Thompson. This unchallenged evidence was accepted. The claimant was visibly upset and crying when giving evidence about the impact of these comments on her and it was necessary to break to allow her to regain her composure and complete her evidence.

[94]I considered that the claimant raised a grievance in part about Ms Thompson’s behaviour towards her and specifically included these incidents. She described them in her grievance as causing her “significant humiliation, discouragement and anxiety”. The grievance also outlined that Ms Thompson’s behaviour created an hostile and discriminatory work environment and that the claimant explored the possibility of a transfer to another service as a result. I did not accept the respondent’s position that as the claimant failed to outline this reason in her transfer request, it was not part of her decision-making.

[95]It was also the claimant’s evidence that she informed Ms Robertson as of the 20 November that she was unable to work with Ms Thompson any longer and Ms Robertson noted that the claimant described feeling degraded by Ms Thompson. By the start of December, the claimant was beginning to panic thinking about working the next day with Ms Thompson. She was coming home from work in tears and was unable to sleep. I found that the claimant perceived that Ms Thompson’s behaviour towards her violated her dignity and created an intimidating, hostile, degrading and offensive environment for her.

[96]I considered the circumstances of the case, in particular that Ms Thompson was senior to the claimant in terms of the hierarchy, that the two worked in close quarters together without any witnesses to their interactions, and that the claimant had just started working permanently for the respondent.

[97]I then considered whether it was reasonable for the claimant to perceive Ms Tompson’s conduct as such. I found that this perception was reasonable. Being proficient enough in a second language to be able to work in that language is a daunting prospect. It requires a person to change how they think, to choose the English word and sentence structure before their native tongue. It requires a person to understand slang and idioms that are not set out in translation dictionaries. From an objective standpoint, to undermine the way someone speaks, to laugh at their pronunciation of words, to pretend not to understand them is cruel and it is reasonable that this conduct is seen as humiliating and degrading. Equally, it is reasonable to perceive an interaction as humiliating or offensive where someone who is speaking English proficiently as a second language is told they needs to learn the language if they wish to live here.

[98]I found therefore that the conduct mocking the claimant’s accent and pronunciation and the comment about learning how to speak Scottish amounted harassment under Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. Allegation two – Ms Thompson’s hostile tone and behaviour

[99]The respondent conceded that Ms Thompson’s tone and behaviour could be hostile but that it was not related to race. I accepted this submission. There was nothing inherent in Ms Thompson’s hostile tone or behaviour towards the claimant which was related to race. She subjected staff and supported women, irrespective of their race, with hostility. It was the subject matter of the conduct towards the claimant which meant it was related to race, rather than the tone in which it was said.

[100]This allegation does not therefore amount to harassment under Section 26 as it is not related to race. Allegation three – failed to take adequate steps to stop Ms Thompson’s conduct when it was raised with management and HR. Did the conduct take place?

[101]The respondent took initial steps to resolve issues between the claimant and Ms Thompson by organizing a meeting to take place on 28 November 2024. There was a miscommunication about how this meeting would progress. In essence Ms Robertson took the view that as the claimant did not want Ms Thompson to join the meeting, there was nothing further she could do to resolve the issues between them. I did not hear any evidence that Ms Roberston put the claimant’s concerns to Ms Thompson, got Ms Thompson’s view or counselled her about her approach when engaging with the claimant.

[102]There were no attempts by the respondent to move either Ms Thompson or the claimant at any point prior to Ms Thompson’s paid leave which began on 20 December. At most, Ms Robertson indicated she could ask Ms Khalil to swap shifts in January. Nothing was done in the immediate aftermath and so the claimant sought her own solution via a vacancy in Paisley Road West.

[103]When Ms Thompson was placed on paid leave on 20 December 2024 after the claimant raised her grievance, this effectively ended her conduct as against the claimant.

[104]I found that after 28 November, the respondent did not take any steps to stop Ms Tompson’s conduct towards her. The claimant remained on shift with Ms Thompson and there was no evidence the claimant’s concerns were raised with her. Once the grievance was raised, Ms Thompson was removed from the workplace. Was the conduct unwanted

[105]I found that it was unwanted conduct. The claimant clearly informed Ms Robertson as of 20 November that she could not continue to work alongside Ms Thompson. Was the conduct related to race?

[106]I found that this unwanted conduct was related to race. The wording of the statute is related to rather than ‘because of’. The claimant wanted the respondent to address Ms Thompson’s conduct towards her which included mocking her accent and pronunciation. Was the purpose of the conduct to violate the claimant’s dignity or create an intimidating, offensive, humiliating or degrading environment.

[107]I found that the respondent did not have this purpose. Ms Robertson was attempting to support and assist the claimant and once the mediation meeting was unsuccessful, felt there was nothing more which could be done. Was the purpose of the conduct to violate the claimant’s dignity or create an intimidating, offensive, humiliating or degrading environment.

[108]I considered the effect of the unwanted conduct on the claimant. While she was clear about how distressed and offended she was at Ms Thompson’s harassing remarks towards her, I did not hear any evidence that the respondent’s inaction offended, humiliated or degraded the claimant. Indeed, the claimant’s evidence was that even when Ms Robertson spoke to Ms Thompson on 28 November, Ms Thompson made a more blatantly racist comment towards her that same shift and so was of the view that the respondent could not do anything to stop Ms Thompson’s behaviour

[109]As there was no evidence that the respondent’s inactions had the required effect under Section 26, I found that they did not amount to harassment. Victimisation

[110]It is not in dispute that the protected acts occurred. The protected acts as per the list of issues and further and better particulars are: raising informal concerns about racial bullying to the claimant’s manager/HR; raising a formal grievance in December 2024; lodging the current claim on 18 March 2025.

[111]The questions I was required to answer were whether the detriments occurred and amounted to detriments and whether there was a link between the protected acts and the detriments. Did the following occur - Failure to support the claimant by not providing updates or reasonable adjustments/being ignored when asked for updates/feeling isolated and unsupported by the respondent

[112]I found there was a failure to provide the claimant with updates throughout the grievance process and that she was ignored. This resulted in the claimant feeling isolated and unsupported.

[113]After initially acknowledging the grievance, and meeting with her as part of the investigation, there is no correspondence or contact from the respondent about the grievance from 23 January to 19 March. The claimant repeatedly asks for an update – at end of January to Ms Robertson, on 4 February by email to Ms Bell, in 24 February email to Ms Robertson and finally to Ms McCabe on 11 March. Only Ms McCabe provides an update, some eight days later to confirm the investigation was still ongoing.

[114]I found that the claimant was not provided with an outcome to her grievance and that this came under the failure to provide updates. I did not accept the respondent’s submission that the claimant was invited to an outcome meeting but declined to attend. The email of 19 March was not an invitation to a meeting. It was an update, informing the claimant that once the investigation concluded, a meeting would be arranged with the claimant. The claimant was not invited to provide availability for such a meeting, as occurred with Ms Thompson, nor was a date and time proposed. There was nothing for the claimant to decline. I also did not accept the submission that the absence of Ms Thompson on the rota indicated to the claimant that the grievance had been resolved. This indicated that Ms Thompson was no longer employed by the respondent and this may well have been result of the grievance, but this did not provide the claimant with an outcome. The claimant raised specific allegations against Ms Thompson in respect of her treatment of the claimant and her treatment of supported women. The claimant has not at any point been informed by the respondent whether or not they upheld her allegations and the basis for their decision.

[115]I found that while the claimant was absent on sick leave, she was unsupported and make reference to my findings of fact about the lack of meetings and contact with the claimant contrary to their normal procedures. While it is accepted the respondent acknowledged sick notes sent in by the claimant, this does not amount to ongoing support. Given that the claimant’s absence began on 1 February 2025 and was continuing at the time of the hearing, it would be reasonable for the respondent to treat this as a long-term absence and at a minimum to engage with the claimant to discuss what could be done to return the claimant to the workplace. This is particularly the case when an employee is informing their employer that their sickness absence has been caused by their working environment. Did these actions amount to detriments?

[116]In applying De Souza and Shamoon, I concluded that the lack of updates, failure to provide an outcome and lack of support during her ongoing sickness absence all amount to detriments. The claimant had a justified sense of grievance about all three. She pointed to the fact that the respondent was continuing to correspond with Ms Thompson during the grievance process and was also provided with an outcome. In failing to give an outcome to the claimant, she was unable to exercise her right of appeal. This is a disadvantage to her. In failing to support her during her sickness absence, the claimant has not been referred to OH and has had no discussion with the respondent about how and when she may be fit enough to return to work. This is a disadvantage for the claimant as she continues to be unwell. Was there a link between the detriments and the protected acts?

[117]I considered whether the detriments were caused by the protected acts. In doing so, I was not applying a ‘but for’ test but instead looking at the real or core reason for the detriment taking place. The protected acts do not need to be the sole reason for the detriment, but rather have a significant influence on the detriment occurring. Failure to provide updates

[118]I found that there was no link between the failure to provide the claimant with updates during the grievance process and the raising of the grievance detailing race discrimination or the raising of informal complaints of race discrimination. When looking at a link between a detriment and the protected act, it is necessary to consider the core reason for the detriments. The protected acts need have a significant influence on the detriment occurring.

[119]I found that the core or real reason for the failure to update the claimant during the grievance process was poor management of that process. There was a lack of understanding from the respondent witnesses as to why the claimant would receive updates during the grievance process. It is telling that when the claimant reached out to Ms Bell for an update, she ignored the email, believing the claimant was not entitled to an update. Similarly Ms McCabe was aghast when it was put to her that the claimant was left without updates, answering “what can we say to you as an update, that we are getting Maria back in or there is a delay because of Stephen?” These are exactly the types of updates which would be expected particularly when the claimant informed the respondent on 1 February the impact Ms Thompson’s behaviour and the handling of her grievance had upon her mental health. Failure to provide an outcome

[120]I found that the failure to provide an outcome to the claimant was significantly influenced by the fact the claimant raised a claim on 18 March. I came to this conclusion based on Ms McCabe’s evidence around the email interaction between her and the claimant from 11 on 21 March. In her email of 19 March, Ms McCabe informs the claimant that when the investigation concludes, she would be happy to meet with the claimant. When the claimant responds on 19 March advising that due to delay she has already submitted her Tribunal claim, no further steps are taken by the respondent to organize a meeting to discuss an outcome or set this out in writing. I also considered Ms McCabe’s concession in evidence that she could have written to the claimant to inform her that Ms Thompson was no longer employed by the respondent but at that stage, but she “then discovered we were at the employment tribunal” i.e. the claim had been lodged. I found that lodging the claim had a significant influence on the respondent’s actions in failing to provide the claimant with an outcome to her grievance. Failure to support the claimant during her sickness absence

[121]While I considered that Ms Robertston’s actions in February to April were not a result of raising the grievance or the Tribunal claim (which in any event was lodged in March) the ongoing lack of support and management of the claimant’s sickness absence was significantly influenced by the Tribunal claim itself. I did not accept that the lack of support was solely due to Ms Robertson’s maternity leave which was the position set out by the respondent. This was a factor, but not the core factor. Given that the respondent is a medium sized employer with absence management policies and procedures in place, has an internal HR department who have a role in managing long term absences, and organized for other employees to act as a point of contact for the claimant’s sick notes while Ms Robertson was on maternity leave, I found that the failure to manage and support the claimant in her absence from April to the date of the hearing was significantly influenced by the fact the claimant raised a tribunal claim. The respondent was aware from the start of the claimant’s sickness absence that it was caused by the events set out in her grievance and how that was being handled. I considered the timing, that the respondent was informed on 20 March that a claim was lodged. The respondent concluded the investigation on 22 March and came to a mutual agreement with Ms Thompson that her employment would end in April and yet there were no entreaties to the claimant to see if she could consider returning to work now that her alleged discriminator had left employment and the investigation had concluded. The lack of support or management of the claimant’s absence continues to date. That is most unusual for an employer of this size. All of these factors fed into my finding this detriment was a result of the claimant raising her Tribunal claim. Breach of confidentiality

[122]I found that the claimant’s confidentiality was breached. Other employees, unconnected to the investigation and Bellisle House knew why the claimant was attending Garscube. Did this amount to a detriment?

[123]This amounted to a detriment. The claimant had a reasonable expectation that this matter would remain confidential. Was there a link between the detriments and the protected acts?

[124]Again, in considering this, I was not applying the ‘but for’ test instead looking at whether the protected acts had a significant influence on the detriment. The two protected acts which could have influenced this detriment were the informal complaint and the grievance given the timing. I found that while the claimant’s confidentiality was breached, this was not significantly influenced by the protected acts. Rather it was due to a lack of confidentiality more generally in employment matters at that time. That was the core reason. The protected acts did not significantly influence the breach of confidentiality. Direct Discrimination

[125]I then considered the following allegations of direct discriminationa. Between October and December 2024 did Maria Thomson subject the claimant to repeated racial remarks/bullying?

b. Forcing the claimant to take annual leave on the festive rota

c. Senior management/HR fail to take the claimant’s concerns seriously?

d. Delay and fail to resolve the claimant’s grievance?

e. Not respond to the claimant’s medical leave and mental health issues appropriately? Allegation one – did it take place?

[126]As above, I found on the balance of probabilities that Ms Thompson made repeated racial remarks to the claimant, mocking her pronunciation, informing her that she could not understand her, laughing at her pronunciation and informing her that she would need to “learn to speak Scottish” if she wanted to live here.

[127]The claimant’s position was also that Ms Thompson required the claimant to undertake the majority of tasks when on shift and did not assist her with these. I found that this had occurred. Was this treatment less favourable when compared to her white British

[128]In respect of the racist comments, I found that neither Ms Godfrey or Ms Khalil had been subjected to this type of conduct by Ms Thompson. However, I considered that Ms Khalil did not have any shifts with Ms Thompson and therefore placed limited weight on the fact she, as a white British person, was not subjected to this treatment. There was no material difference in the circumstances as between the claimant and Ms Godfrey – they were both night shift workers on the same pattern, undertaking two shifts per four shifts with Ms Thompson. The treatment in respect of the racist comments was less favourable.

[129]Ms Godfrey’s evidence was that when she was undertaking the night shift with Ms Thompson, she was also required to undertake the majority of tasks. As such the treatment was not less favourable. Was this treatment because of the protected characteristic of race?

[130]I found that the racial remarks were made to the claimant because of race. The claimant’s unchallenged evidence was that these comments were mocking. Ms Thompson was not trying to assist the claimant in her pronunciation but rather make fun of her. There was no evidence that other colleagues were also mocked for their pronunciation or informed they needed to learn to speak Scottish. This treatment was tied to the fact that the claimant was a North African/Moroccan woman who did not speak English as a first language.

[131]This allegation is therefore founded and amounts to direct discrimination. Allegation two – did it occur?

[132]It was not in dispute that in a version of the festive rota published to the parties on or around 19 November, the claimant was the only person directed to take annual leave. This action meant the claimant was not free to use her annual leave as and when she choose. She was intending to keep her annual leave for when her mother visited. Was this less favourable treatment when compared with her white British

[133]I also found that it was. Neither Ms Khalil nor Ms Godfrey were directed to take annual leave either on this rota or on other iterations of the festive rota. At most, Ms Khalil was required to work on her daughter’s birthday in an earlier version of the rota, and was informed that if she did not want to work that day, she would need to request annual leave. This remained a choice for Ms Khalil however. Was this less favourable treatment because of the claimant’s race?

[134]The direction itself was not inherently discriminatory and so it was necessary to consider the mental process of Ms Thompson when drafting the festive rota and whether the criterion of race operated in her mind when directing the claimant to take annual leave.

[135]The respondent’s position was that finalizing a festive rota that everyone was happy with, which accommodated the preferences of the night shift workers while covering the service sufficiently, was a difficult task. I accepted that position in general terms. Ms Thompson’s evidence was that when she asked Ms Robertson if she could direct employees to take annual leave, she was thinking of how this happened in her previous employment. She directed the claimant to take annual leave because otherwise she would work too many days in a row on the rota she drafted. While I had concerns about the reliability of Ms Thompson’s evidence as a whole, the difficult nature of the festive rota was borne out in contemporaneous documents. Further Ms Robertson gave evidence about a phonecall she had with Ms Thompson in advance of the 18 November rota which confirmed her line of thought. I was satisfied that there was a non-discriminatory reason for directing the claimant to take annual leave on the 18 November festive rota, namely the difficulty in drafting a festive rota that everyone was happy with.

[136]This allegation therefore does not amount to direct discrimination. Allegation three Ms Thompson’s behaviour towards the claimant during altercation on 19/20 November Did the treatment occur?

[137]The claimant’s position was also that Ms Thompson’s behaviour towards her during their heated discussion on 19/20 November about the festive rota was an act of direct discrimination based on race.

[138]I found that Ms Thompson was aggressive towards the claimant during this altercation and forcefully rejected the claimant’s concerns by stating that she had the authority to assign annual leave. The altercation left the claimant in tears and as a result she sought a change to her working pattern and/or location so that she would no longer worked alongside Ms Thompson.

[139]As above, the respondent position was that this was how Ms Thompson communicated with staff – aggressive, authoritative and brash. While the claimant’s position was that Ms Thompson’s was also racist towards her, I found that there was no difference in Ms Thompson’s manner towards the claimant on 19/20 November and how she would engage with other white British colleagues.

[140]I found therefore that this was not less favourable when compared with her white British colleagues and so this allegation does not amount to direct discrimination. Allegation four -Senior Management/HR failed to take the claimant’s concerns seriously

[141]I found that the respondent did take the claimant’s concerns seriously. After receiving the claimant’s initial email on the morning of 20 November, Ms Robertson reassured the claimant that she would deal with it and had a detailed call with her. She then reported it to Ms Munro effectively to say something needed to be done. An attempt to address the situation was made on 28 November but this was ultimately unsuccessful. After the meeting on 5 December with the claimant and Ms Khalil, Ms Robertson encouraged the claimant to put the complaint in writing. Once this was received, an investigation was organized though ultimately did not find that the discriminatory conduct took place in the absence of corroborating evidence of same.

[142]While I accept that the respondent took limited steps to move the claimant or Ms Thompson so that they were not continuing to work together, this needs to be considered in the round. The respondent’s first approach was to resolve it via mediation. At the point of the mediation meeting the claimant had already applied for a transfer elsewhere rendering the respondent’s input moot. There was then some back and forth and ultimately Ms Khalil took up the post in Paisley Road West so that the claimant could take her shifts in Bellisle House. While it is arguable that it should not have been for the claimant to make these arrangements, it was reasonable for the respondent to attempt to resolve the matter informally in the first instance rather than immediately transfer either the claimant or Ms Thompson. When that informal approach did not succeed, there was no opportunity for the respondent to act as the claimant had already applied for a transfer.

[143]I therefore found that on the whole, the respondent did take the claimant’s concerns seriously. This allegation does not therefore amount to direct discrimination. Allegation five - Delay and fail to resolve the claimant’s grievance

[144]I will deal with the failure to resolve point first. I found that the respondent did resolve the claimant’s grievance. What they failed to do was inform the claimant of their outcome.

[145]In terms of delay, I found that there was some delay in that the final investigation meeting took place on the 13 February, the investigation report was completed by Ms Bell on 24 February and signed off by Ms McCabe on 22 March.

[146]When considering whether this was less favourable treatment, it was not entirely clear who the claimant was comparing herself to. There was reference in her evidence to Kristy Bullamore and Ms Bell who were subjected to disciplinary investigations and whose investigations she maintained were progressed at a faster pace than hers. This was not disputed by the respondent. Was this less favourable treatment because of the claimant’s race?

[147]In applying Madarassy, I found that there was no evidence the delay in dealing with the claimant’s grievance was due to her race. There was not ‘something more’ in either the claimant or respondent’s evidence. The only the fact were that the claimant suffered less favourable treatment and was a person of colour. In the absence of ‘something more’ this allegation does not amount to direct discrimination. Allegation six - Not responding to the claimant’s medical leave and mental health issues appropriately

[148]There is some overlap with the victimization claim here where the claimant pled that the lack of support during her sickness absence was as a result of making protected acts.

[149]As outlined within that, I found that the respondent did not respond to the claimant’s sickness absence appropriately. To date, there has been no absence management by the respondent and no attempts to assist the claimant to return to her place of work. This aspect has been poorly handled and irrespective of this decision, will need to be addressed by the respondent who continues to employ the claimant.

[150]There was no evidence that the claimant was treated any differently to her white colleagues in terms of the management of her absence.

[151]Even if this treatment were less favourable, rather than detrimental, the claimant did not prove ‘something more’ than the fact of the treatment and her race. In applying Madarassy, this is insufficient to bring this into the realm of direct discrimination.

[152]This allegation does not therefore amount to direct discrimination.

Remedy

[153]The appropriate remedy for the successful aspects of this discrimination claim is an injury to feelings award.

[154]In considering what award to make I relied upon the evidence of the claimant and her husband, Mr Lmir. I was not referred to medical evidence on prognosis or which aspects of the discriminatory behaviour have impacted on the continuing symptoms of depression and anxiety. As such, I considered the manner of the discriminatory treatment and detrimental treatment which occurred as a result to draw inferences as to the extent of the injury to feelings.

[155]The burden is on the claimant to show that their feelings have been injured and to what extent. Within this, I’m have considered:a. The claimant’s description of her injury

b. Duration of the consequences

c. Effect on past, current and future work

d. Effect on personal life or quality of life

[156]The claimant described the immediate impact of Ms Thompson’s discriminatory conduct on her, noting that she was often tearful after a shift, in a panicked state in advance of a shift and her sleep was affected. Her confidence was immediately impacted and the treatment has made her question her fluency in speaking English. She described feeling devastated by the treatment.

[157]When she mistakenly understood that Ms Thompson was returning to work on the first week in February, she had a mental health breakdown. She attended her GP for the first time and was diagnosed with depression, anxiety and stress. She has been on anti-depressants since that date, and the dose has increased over time. She undertook some counselling over a virtual platform which had limited benefit and at the date of the hearing, was awaiting one to one counselling. Her sleep continues to be affected. She is not present in her day to day life. She spends her time in bed in a dark room. Her confidence is low.

[158]The claimant is continuing to suffer from depression and anxiety. The symptoms described above have not alleviated over the period since the discrimination first took effect. The claimant continues to be absent from work. Unfortunately, I did not hear any evidence about a likely prognosis for recovery.

[159]The impact of the treatment by Ms Thompson is that the claimant has lost confidence in herself and her abilities, specifically her abilities in speaking fluently in English. She now questions what people think when she speaks. She broke down in evidence when asked how Ms Thompson’s comments made her feel. She was distressed at the thought of Ms Thompson remaining in the room as an observer after her evidence was complete. More generally, her husband described a loss of confidence and a loss of spark or interest in her career.

[160]In terms of her personal life, the claimant does not have the same approach to enjoying life as she used to. She used to enjoy organizing and participating in fun family based activities for their weekends together. She no longer does so. She is not present when caring for or playing with her young children.

[161]I considered the evidence provided by the claimant and Mr Lmir about the impact on her mental health caused by the discriminatory actions of the respondent. I noted that the harassment by Ms Thompson was not a one off incident. The claimant and Ms Thompson worked together on approximately 9 shifts between the start date of 30 September and the 28 November when Ms Thompson made her last remark. It was not that Ms Thompson stopped making remarks towards the claimant after that date but due to outside factors – the claimant’s annual leave and the respondent putting Ms Thompson on paid leave – that she was not subjected to further harassment. The discrimination was overt. It was clear that it related to the claimant’s race.

[162]In terms of the victimisation claim, I considered that in failing to inform the claimant of the outcome of her grievance, there was a lack of resolution and closure for the claimant. Reviewing the investigation outcome via disclosure of papers in the Tribunal process was insufficient. I also considered the claimant’s emails to the respondent in February when reporting her sick leave, clearing explaining that it was caused by both Ms Thompson’s actions and the management of the grievance. By leaving the grievance unresolved on the claimant’s part, the basis for her sickness absence remained a live issue.

[163]By failing to support her or manage her sickness absence which was caused by the workplace issues, the claimant has become isolated from her employer. She stated in evidence that the lack of contact has made her “feel like a nobody.” She stated that at a minimum, the respondent should have picked up the phone and ask if she was ok. In doing so, they would have demonstrated to her that she belonged in the respondent organisation and that she was not alone. The impact of this lack of support is ongoing in terms of how it has affected the claimant.

[164]Had the claimant’s absence been managed in the normal expected way, there would have been an ongoing dialogue about her health and what if anything the respondent could do to assist her back to work. It is likely that she would have been referred to occupational health who may also have had recommendations about her health and how she could have returned to work. It was put to the claimant’s husband that Ms Thompson ceased working for the respondent in April 2025 and so the problem had been removed. I found that while Ms Thompson was the catalyst for the breakdown in the claimant’s mental health, the respondent’s inaction played a role in the continuing nature of her mental health difficulties.

[165]The harassment/direct discrimination was not a single act but an ongoing course of discrimination taking place over approximately 9 or 10 shifts over period of two months. The claimant was clear in her evidence of the initial hurt and distress caused by Ms Thompson’s actions. This was also evident by the mental breakdown which occurred on or around 1 February when the claimant heard the false claim that Ms Thompson was to return to work. There is also a longer lasting effect of that discrimination. The claimant’s confidence in speaking English has been impacted and she continues to think of how she is perceived by others when talking. The fact that the claimant was successful on the grounds of direct discrimination and harassment in respect of Ms Thompson’s conduct does not increase the injury to feelings award as to do so would result in double recovery.

[166]The victimisation is ongoing as the claimant remains absent and this is not being managed or supported. She has not had any closure on her grievance. She is effectively in a state of limbo.

[167]She continues to suffer from depression and anxiety and her symptoms have not alleviated with the passage of time. Her medication has been increased and her symptoms and the effect on her life is static.

[168]Noting that the purpose of an injury to feelings award is to compensate the claimant rather than punish the respondent, I have assessed the appropriate as £15,000 which is the lower end of the middle scale taking into account all of the above factors under the heading remedy. I have applied the Vento figures as at April 2024 as the claim was lodged in March 2025.

[169]Although no application was made, I am required to consider whether to apply interest to the award as per Employment Tribunal (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Claims) Regulations 1996. I decided that interest should be awarded.

[170]The Regulations provides that interest shall be paid on the period beginning on the date of the discrimination and ending on the date of calculation. Noting that the claimant began working for the respondent on 30 September and worked the second two shifts with Ms Thompson in every four shift pattern, and that the discrimination occurred from the first shift with Ms Thomson, the start date is 2 October 2024. The date of calculation is the date of this reserved judgment, 12 December 2025. Interest applies on the award of £15,000 at 8% over 436 days. The total interest is £1,433.42

Remedy

[1]The claimant made an application for reconsideration on 29 December 2025 in respect of Judgment of the Tribunal dated 12 December 2025 (sent to parties 18 December 2025), specifically the award of compensation. This was copied to the respondent’s representatives at that time. A further written submission with accompanying documents was provided by the claimant on 3 February 2026 at the Tribunal’s request along with confirmation that the reconsideration application could be considered on the papers. This was also copied to the respondent at that time.

[2]No response was received from the respondent in respect of either the application or subsequent written submission. The Tribunal wrote to the respondent on 5 February 2026 asking if they objected to the reconsideration application, and if so the basis of this objection and whether the matter should be dealt with at a hearing or on the papers. They were directed to respond by 19 February. No response was received.

[3]A notice of hearing in chambers was sent to the parties on 9 March 2026. Relevant Law

[4]Reconsideration of judgments is covered by Rules 68 – 71 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. Specifically Rule 68 states that a Tribunal may reconsider any judgment “where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so” and in reconsidering the judgment, may confirm, vary or revoke the original judgment.

[5]The interests of justice test gives the Tribunal considerable discretion. This discretion should be exercised having regard “not only to the interest of the party seeking review or reconsideration but also to the interests of the other party to the litigation and to the public interest requirement that there should, so far as possible, be finality of litigation” - Outasight VB Ltd v Brown 215 ICR D11 EAT.

[6]Reconsideration should not be used to deal with matters which should properly be a matter of appeal – Trimble v Supertravel Ltd

[1982] IRLR 451

. Further where an error has been made by a party’s representative, it would not be in the interests of justice to allow reconsideration so as to fix this error – Lindsay v Ironsides Ray and Vials

1994 ICR 384

EAT. To do so could allow claimants to relitigate their claims through the reconsideration process by pointing to representative error. Submissions

[7]The Tribunal considered the initial reconsideration application submitted by the claimant as well as her subsequent written submissions and documents lodged at the request of the Tribunal. There were no respondent submissions to consider. For brevity, not every aspect of the submissions are referred to below but for the avoidance of doubt, the all documents out forward by the claimant were considered in full in coming to the decision.

[8]The Tribunal had to determine whether it would be in the interests of justice to vary the original judgment to include an award for loss of earnings, covering both past and future loss of earnings and loss of pension. The initial decision made an injury to feelings award of £15,000 with reference to the Vento scale.

[9]The claimant submitted that she was a litigant in person who did not understood that remedy and financial losses would be dealt with at the final hearing and so did not lead evidence on her future medical prognosis. She also did not provide a schedule of loss for this reason. It is noted however that the Notice of Hearing dated 8 July 2025 confirms “we have set aside 6 Days for its full disposal including remedy if appropriate.” Further the note from the preliminary hearing which took place on 2 July 2025 referred to a discussion as to ‘the extent to which medical evidence may be required, particularly in relation to remedy.’ There was also some discussion at that preliminary hearing on the loss claimed with the respondent confirming that there was sufficient information from the claimant about the calculation of loss. The Tribunal considered that the claimant was on notice that remedy and loss would be dealt with at the final hearing and that medical evidence may be required to deal with that aspect of the case.

[10]It is appreciated that claimant who is not legally qualified was representing herself through the Tribunal process. She was also doing so through her second language of English. Assistance was provided at various points of the substantive hearing, in terms of explanation of the process, the need to challenge evidence, assisting in the framing of questions for both examination in chief and cross examination and ensuring the claimant had every opportunity to set out her case in her own examination in chief.

[11]The claimant submitted that as the Tribunal found at paragraph 164 that the respondent’s inaction with regard to absence management ‘played a role in the continuing nature of her mental health difficulties’ that the Tribunal could make an award for past loss and future loss of earnings. She also submitted that the Tribunal found at paragraph 153 that the respondent’s unlawful conduct ‘caused or materially contributed to’ her mental ill health as a basis for a further award. That latter finding was not in fact set out at paragraph 153 or at all in the Judgment.

[12]The Judgment details in paragraphs 153 to 170 the decision on remedy and what factors were taken into account in determining the amount of an award. Specifically, paragraph 155 notes that one of the factors under consideration was the effect of the claimant’s past, current and future work while another is the duration of the consequences and that another was the duration of the consequence. This mirrors the recent guidance from the EAT on what a Tribunal should consider when assessing what level of compensation to award in Eddie Stobard Limited v Miss Caitlin Graham

[2025] EAT 14

which was referred to in paragraph 27 of the Judgment.

[13]The award of injury to feelings therefore considered the impact on the claimant’s work, the fact that she remained absent from work at the time of the hearing and that the respondent’s inaction played a role in her ongoing absence. It did so based on the evidence that was available to it which included oral evidence from the claimant and her husband on her mental health and the ongoing nature of this. The fact of an ongoing loss was considered and accommodation made for this when deciding on the appropriate level of award.

[14]The purpose of reconsideration is not to allow a claimant to have a second bite of the cherry, to relitigate points already decided or to introduce arguments not set out in the original hearing. The exercise of discretion in such applications must take into account the importance of the finality of litigation. Consideration has been given to the fact that the claimant was representing herself and not legally qualified. Balancing all of the above factors, the Tribunal finds that it would not be in the interests of justice to make a further award of compensation in the terms the claimant seeks. Date of Judgment: 11 March 2026