Miss S Sutherland v Watkins Solicitors: 1405902/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 2022 |
| Date | 31 January 2022 |
| Citation | 1405902/2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 09 February 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Race Discrimination |
Case No. 1405902/2020
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Claimant Respondent
Miss S Sutherland AND Watkins Solicitors
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
HELD AT Bristol ON 17 to 21 January 2021
EMPLOYMENT JUDGE J Bax
MEMBERS Mrs D England
Mrs P Ray
Representation
For the Claimant: Mr R Downey (counsel)
For the Respondent: Mrs B Watkins (solicitor)
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the tribunal is that
1. The Respondent contravened section 39(2)(d) of the Equality Act 2010 and
the Claimant succeeded in her claim of harassment in relation to the
incident in February 2019.
2. The claims of constructive unfair dismissal, direct discrimination,
victimisation and remaining claims of harassment are dismissed.
REMEDY
1. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of £8,500 for injury
to feelings in respect of her claim of harassment.
2. The Respondent is ordered to pay interest in the agreed sum of £991.50.
3. The total sum to be paid is £9,491.50.
Case No. 1405902/2020
2
REASONS
1. In this case the Claimant, Miss Sutherland, claimed that she was
constructively unfairly dismissed and also that the Respondent sexually and
racially discriminated against her. The Respondent contended that the
claimant resigned because she was facing disciplinary proceedings, that
there was no dismissal, and denied discrimination.
Background and the issues
2. The Claimant notified ACAS of the dispute on 5 September 2020 and the
certificate was issued on 5 October 2020. She presented her claim to the
Tribunal on 4 November 2020.
3. At a Telephone Case Management Preliminary Hearing before Employment
Judge O’Rourke, the issues and claims being made were identified, namely
that there were 7 allegations of breach of the implied term of trust and
confidence in respect of the constructive dismissal claim, 4 allegations of
direct race and sex discrimination, 4 allegations of harassment relating to
race and 4 allegations of victimisation. The Respondent relied upon the
reasonable steps defence in relation to one allegation of harassment. It was
also necessary to consider time limits with respect to the Equality Act 2010
claims.
4. At the start of the hearing the issues were discussed and were confirmed
as those identified by Employment Judge O’Rourke. The Claimant clarified
that the allegations of direct discrimination and harassment were on the
basis of both race and sex.
5. There were also discussions about the bundle. Until 14 January 2022, the
Respondent had been represented. The Claimant had sent the
Respondent’s previous representatives documents to be included in the
bundle, but they had not been included. Mrs Watkins was unaware of the m.
It was agreed that the Claimant would send her a copy and that the
Respondent would provide copies for the Tribunal. It was also agreed that
the Respondent would disclose the Claimant’s contract of employment and
its data protection policy. The Respondent paginated all of the documents,
even if already in the bundle. The Claimant wanted to see the Respondent’s
disciplinary policy and it was ordered that it was disclosed. The disciplinary
policy and other documents were provided to the Claimant by the
Respondent and the Claimant agreed to include them in the bundle.
6. After the Judgment on liability discussion took place about whether the
Claimant would give further evidence. The Respondent did not want to
cross-examine her and Counsel for the Claimant did not seek to recall her.
It was agreed that both parties made oral submissions. After the decision
Case No. 1405902/2020
3
on remedy was given the parties agreed the rate of interest to be applied at
4%.
The evidence
7. We heard from the Claimant and also Ms Warmington (HR for the
Respondent) and Mr Williams (conveyancer) on her behalf. We also heard
from Mrs Dunlop (partner), Mr Calwell (partner), Mrs Watkins (partner) and
Ms Grohmann (practice manager) on behalf of the Respondent.
8. We were provided with a bundle of 279 pages. Any reference in square
brackets within these reasons is a reference to a page in the bundle.
9. There was a degree of conflict on the evidence.
10. A surprising feature of the evidence was that the Respondent’s witness
statements were very short and did not appear to contain evidence in
relation to all relevant facts. The Respondent had been represented until
shortly before the final hearing. It also appeared that when the statements
were taken by the solicitors that they passed through the hands of Mrs
Watkins as the point of contact.
The facts
11. We found the following facts proven on the balance of probabilities after
considering the whole of the evidence, both oral and documentary, and after
listening to the factual and legal submissions made by and on behalf of the
respective parties.
12. The Respondent is a firm of solicitors.
13. The Claimant describes herself as a black British woman. She commenced
employment with the Respondent on 17 July 2018 as an administrative
assistant in the conveyancing department. Ms Dunlop was the head of
conveyancing. At that time the only other administrative assistant was Mr
Northey and Mr Williams was the only qualified conveyancing paralegal.
14. Mr Northey, a white male, started working for the Respondent in 2013,
initially within the family department as an administrative assistant, until the
first part of 2018 when he moved to the conveyancing department. He was
also particularly adept at dealing with technical issues involving the
Respondent’s computer system and scanning/copying equipment.
15. The Claimant’s role included managing, opening, closing, storing and
retrieving client files and sending out client packs. She was also required to
provide general administrative support to the conveyancing department,
To continue reading
Request your trial