Anonymised Summary of Employment Tribunal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The Claimant, a Romanian national employed by Company A from 12 March 2018 as a Band 6 nurse in a Waiting List Support Service (WLSS), brought two employment tribunal claims arising from her treatment at work, adjustments for health conditions and the termination of her employment. The hearing took place over multiple days in The City in late 2025 before Judge Brace, with Member Lloyd-Jennings and Member Pendle. The Claimant represented herself; Company A was represented by Attorney Vines. The Claimant had an acknowledged chronic gynaecological disability and periods of anxiety; she also alleged musculoskeletal impairment. The case involved a detailed factual matrix of meetings, occupational health reports, internal grievance/Respect and Resolution investigations (two rounds), redeployment efforts and eventual dismissal for "some other substantial reason" following a concluded redeployment period. The Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant and multiple Company A managers and clinical staff, and reserved judgment on liability and remedies.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether complaints under the Equality Act 2010 (harassment related to race s.26; direct race discrimination s.13; discrimination arising from disability s.15; failure to make reasonable adjustments s.20/21; victimisation s.27) were made in time and, if not, whether time should be extended.
2. Whether the Claimant met the statutory definition of disability (s.6 EqA 2010) in respect of a musculoskeletal condition.
3. Whether the Claimant was directly discriminated against because of race (s.13 EqA 2010) in relation to workload and treatment.
4. Whether the Claimant was harassed related to race (s.26 EqA 2010) by comments made at a January 2023 PIP meeting.
5. Whether Company A failed to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments (s.20/21 EqA 2010), including provision of auxiliary aids and home-working.
6. Whether dismissal was unfair under s.98 ERA 1996 (reason and fairness of dismissal for some other substantial reason).
7. Whether there was unlawful deduction from wages (s.13 ERA 1996) in relation to sick pay reductions.

Arguments of the Parties

Claimant's Arguments

• The Claimant alleged she was subjected to harassment related to race when a senior manager compared her behaviour to "a Russian or German" and described her as "dictatorial".
• She contended she suffered direct race discrimination in workload allocation and treatment from September 2022 onwards and that treatment was a continuing act.
• She argued Company A failed to make reasonable adjustments recommended by occupational health (home-working, breaks, auxiliary equipment) and that a musculoskeletal condition made her disabled.
• The Claimant submitted time should be extended because of delays in the internal grievance (Respect and Resolution) process and because references to the PIP repeatedly revived the relevant conduct.
• The Claimant alleged dismissal and pay adjustments were linked to the protected acts and to disability-related consequences.

Respondent's Arguments

• Company A accepted the Claimant's gynaecological condition and anxiety but denied a musculoskeletal disability at the material times.
• Company A denied that workload or treatment amounted to race discrimination and contended the dismissal was for some other substantial reason (irretrievable breakdown in working relationships) and was procedurally reasonable.
• Company A submitted that many adjustments had been proposed and implemented (home-working, breaks, equipment requests considered) and that the Claimant had not established a PCP or substantial disadvantage for reasonable adjustment claims.
• On limitation, Company A argued the harassment claim (January 2023 remark) was a one-off act and out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time given lengthy unexplained delay after internal processes concluded.
• Company A maintained that sick-pay reductions were lawful in light of the Claimant's continuity of service and contractual entitlements and that unlawful deduction claims were out of time.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Glasgow City Council v Zafar [1998] ICR 120	That unreasonable employer conduct alone does not establish unlawful discrimination.	Used to emphasise that unfairness does not automatically equate to unlawful discrimination.
Nagarajan v London Regional Transport and others [1999] IRLR 527 HL	Tribunal must consider the reason why less favourable treatment occurred; need for appropriate comparison.	Applied to assess whether the protected characteristic materially influenced treatment.
Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337	Use of hypothetical comparator and consideration of how the claimant would be treated without the protected characteristic.	Referenced in analysis of direct discrimination and comparator approach.
Amnesty International v Ahmed [2009] IRLR 884	Focus on the "reason why" the respondent acted; mental processes of decision-makers.	Applied when examining motives/reasons for alleged less favourable treatment.
Bahl v Law Society 2004 IRLR 799	Need to demonstrate worse treatment than an appropriate comparator.	Used to require evidence of material difference in circumstances for direct discrimination claims.
Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v Aslam [2020] IRLR 495	Interpretation of "related to" a protected characteristic in harassment analysis.	Referenced in assessing whether conduct was related to race and what factual features support that connection.
Grant v HM Land Registry 2011 IRLR 748	Context is highly material when assessing effect of words for harassment.	Applied when determining whether the January 2023 remark created a hostile environment.
Equal Opportunities Commission v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2007] ICR 1234	"Related to" can encompass conduct associated with the protected characteristic.	Supported finding that comparison to national stereotypes could be "related to" race.
Environment Agency v Rowan 2008 ICR 218	Approach to reasonable adjustment claims: identify PCP, comparator, substantial disadvantage.	Applied to structure the reasonable adjustments analysis.
HM Prison Services v Johnson 2007 IRLR 951	Need to identify with particularity the step employer failed to take.	Used to assess whether Claimant had identified reasonable adjustments required.
Pnaiser v NHS England and others UKEAT/0137/15/LA	Stepwise approach for s.15 discrimination arising from disability: identify unfavourable treatment, cause, link to disability, justification.	Followed to assess s.15 claim and causal links between disability and dismissal.
Igen v Wong 2005 IRLR 258	Burden of proof framework in discrimination claims (shifting burden where prima facie case established).	Applied in discussion of evidential burdens.
Madarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] ICR 867	Clarification that tribunals need not recite Igen step-by-step; focus on statutory language and fact-finding.	Referenced regarding burden of proof approach.
Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd 2003 ICR 1205	Guidance endorsed on burden shifting in discrimination cases.	Used in discussion of when burden of proof shifts to respondent.
Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link 2003 IRLR 434	Guidance on extension of time: claimant must convince tribunal it is just and equitable to extend time; extension is exception.	Applied in refusal to extend time for out-of-time harassment claim.
British Coal Corporation v Keeble (Limitation Act s.33 checklist referenced)	Factors relevant to extension of time (useful checklist).	Referred to as a reminder in the court's exercise of discretion on time extension.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal's analysis proceeded by addressing procedural/time issues first, then each statutory head of complaint in turn, applying the relevant legal principles and the facts found on the balance of probabilities.

Evidence assessment and findings of fact

• The Tribunal assessed witness evidence for consistency with contemporaneous documents and found many events historic; it made findings on credibility and limited factual findings where documentary support existed.
• The Tribunal found the Claimant's continuity of employment began 12 March 2018 for contractual entitlements.
• Company A conceded the Claimant was disabled by a chronic gynaecological condition and that it had knowledge from December 2021; anxiety was accepted from February 2023. The Tribunal rejected that the Claimant was disabled by any musculoskeletal condition at the material times.

Harassment related to race (s.26 EqA 2010)

• The Tribunal found that at the 25 January 2023 PIP meeting a senior manager said "You behave like a Russian or German" and described the Claimant as "dictatorial".
• Applying the statutory test and authorities on context and "related to" the protected characteristic, the Tribunal concluded the national-stereotype comparison was conduct related to race and that it had the effect of creating a hostile environment for the Claimant.
• However, the Tribunal treated that conduct as a one-off act and held the harassment complaint on that act was brought out of time (primary three-month rule). It considered whether it was just and equitable to extend time, weighed prejudice to both sides and declined to extend time because of lengthy unexplained delay after internal processes concluded.

Direct race discrimination (s.13 EqA 2010)

• The Tribunal applied comparator analysis and required evidence that the Claimant was treated less favourably because of race. It examined workload, role content and post-redeployment duties.
• Findings: the Claimant's duties were consistent with a Band 6 role; temporary line-management tasks were not outside reasonable Band 6 expectations and were removed when concerns arose; there was no reliable evidence that the Claimant's workload was heavier for race-related reasons. The direct race discrimination claims were dismissed.

Disability (s.6 EqA 2010) and reasonable adjustments (s.20/21 EqA 2010)

• The Tribunal concluded the Claimant was disabled by the gynaecological condition and that Company A knew of it, but rejected that she was disabled by a musculoskeletal condition at the material times given lack of medical evidence of long-term substantial effect.
• On reasonable adjustments: the Tribunal found Company A had implemented various adjustments (home-working from Nov 2022 and increased to two days/week from Jan 2023, comfort breaks, equipment assessments) and there was no established PCP of refusing home-working or breaks. The Claimant had been encouraged to complete refreshed stress risk assessments but had not; no substantial disadvantage from a failure to review SRA was established. Claims of failure to provide auxiliary aids failed because the Tribunal did not find a qualifying musculoskeletal disability.

Discrimination arising from disability (s.15 EqA 2010)

• The Tribunal identified dismissal as unfavourable treatment but concluded the principal reason was irretrievable breakdown in working relationships, not something arising in consequence of disability. Occupational health recommendations were implemented and did not significantly influence redeployment outcomes. The s.15 claim failed.

Victimisation (s.27 EqA 2010)

• The Tribunal accepted internal grievances and earlier ET proceedings were protected acts and that dismissal was a detriment. It found, however, that dismissal was not because of those protected acts but because redeployment efforts failed after independent internal processes concluded; the victimisation claim failed.

Unfair dismissal (s.98 ERA 1996)

• The Tribunal accepted Company A's stated reason for dismissal (breakdown in working relationships) as a potentially fair reason. It reviewed the procedural steps: independent investigation, managerial decisions independent from WLSS, opportunity for redeployment, appeal processes and assessment of alternative posts.
• On balance the Tribunal concluded Company A's decision fell within the band of reasonable responses; dismissal was not unfair.

Unlawful deductions (s.13 ERA 1996)

• The Tribunal found Claimant's contractual sick-pay entitlement (based on continuity from March 2018) entitled her to five months full pay and five months half pay; pay reductions from June 2023 did not amount to unauthorised deductions. Even if arguable, the claim was out of time and time was not extended.

Holding and Implications

Core Rulings

• Harassment related to race (s.26 EqA 2010): The Tribunal found the January 2023 remark amounted to harassment in substance but the claim based on that act was brought out of time and time was not extended; the claim was dismissed.
• Direct race discrimination (s.13 EqA 2010): Not well founded; dismissed.
• Disability (s.6 EqA 2010): Claimant was disabled by the gynaecological condition (conceded) but not by any musculoskeletal condition; related complaints based on a musculoskeletal disability were dismissed.
• Failure to make reasonable adjustments (s.20/21 EqA 2010): First PCP (home-working/breaks) — parts out of time and not extended; second PCP/auxiliary aids — not well founded and dismissed.
• Discrimination arising from disability (s.15 EqA 2010): Not well founded; dismissed.
• Victimisation (s.27 EqA 2010): Not well founded; dismissed.
• Unfair dismissal (s.98 ERA 1996): Not well founded; dismissed.
• Unlawful deduction from wages (s.13 ERA 1996): Out of time and time not extended; dismissed.

Implications

The direct practical consequence is that all of the Claimant's claims were dismissed (some on limitation grounds, others on merits). The Tribunal did not set a new legal precedent; it applied established authorities to the facts and exercised its discretion on time extension. The decision confirms that (i) contextual national-stereotype remarks can be "related to" race for harassment analysis but that promptness in issuing tribunal claims remains crucial, and (ii) implementation of many occupational health suggestions and reasonable redeployment steps, together with independent grievance processes, can support an employer's position where relationships are found irretrievably broken.

Decision delivered by Judge Brace (reserved judgment dated 30 December 2025; judgment sent to the parties 07 January 2026).