Production line worker loses victimisation claim over absence management after protected act
A production line worker with 12 years' service failed to prove that Jaguar Land Rover victimised him by managing his sickness absence after he brought a sex discrimination claim. The tribunal found the employer's actions were not because of the protected act.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #victimisation
- #protected-act
- #shared-parental-leave
- #absence-review
- #occupational-health
- #early-intervention
Key facts
- The claimant brought a sex discrimination claim against the respondent in May 2018 (the protected act).
- On 9 October 2019, the claimant's shared parental leave application was rejected because he used the wrong form.
- The claimant reacted aggressively when told his form was rejected.
- On 10 October 2019, the claimant was summoned to an absence review meeting on the first day of sickness absence.
- The claimant was required to ring in daily for 8 days from 11 October 2019.
- The claimant was absent from work from October 2019 to March 2020 due to anxiety and depression.
Timeline
-
First claim issued
The claimant issued proceedings claiming direct and indirect sex discrimination (the protected act).
-
Second child born
The claimant's second child was born.
-
Shared parental leave form rejected
The claimant's application for shared parental leave was rejected because he used an incorrect government form. He reacted aggressively when told.
-
Absence review meeting
The claimant was summoned to an absence review meeting on the first day of his sickness absence. He attended with his union representative.
-
Daily ringing requirement starts
The claimant was required to ring in to work daily before his shift for 8 days.
-
Absence review case management meeting
Meeting with David Broady and Sharon Hollier; the claimant raised concerns about the litigation and shared parental leave.
-
Absence review meeting
David Broady offered a phased return; the claimant said he could not return while litigation was ongoing.
-
Absence review meeting
The claimant confirmed no foreseeable return to work; David Broady escalated to an employment review.
-
Employment review meeting
Meeting with Phil Hannah; the claimant agreed to return to work in 6 weeks.
-
Return to work
The claimant returned to work on a phased basis.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the respondent subjected the claimant to detriment because he had brought a previous sex discrimination claim (protected act), i.e., whether the claimant was victimised under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010.
The outcome
The tribunal unanimously dismissed the claim of victimisation. The key reason was that the respondent's actions—summoning the claimant to an absence review on his first day of sickness, requiring daily phone-ins, and conducting absence meetings—were not because of his protected act but because of his aggressive reaction to the rejection of his shared parental leave form and his subsequent sickness absence. The tribunal preferred the respondent's contemporaneous notes over the claimant's memory, finding that the claimant genuinely but mistakenly believed he was being targeted. No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Bringing a previous discrimination claim does not give you blanket protection from normal management processes like absence reviews.
- If you react aggressively to a workplace decision, employers may legitimately take that into account when managing your conduct or absence.
- Contemporaneous notes carry significant weight in tribunal hearings—keep records of meetings and decisions.
- A genuine belief that you are being victimised is not enough; you need evidence that the employer's actions were because of your protected act.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the difficulty of proving victimisation when an employer's actions could be explained by other legitimate reasons. The claimant, a production line worker with 12 years' service, had brought a sex discrimination claim in May 2018. When his shared parental leave application was rejected in October 2019 due to an incorrect form, he reacted aggressively. The next day, on his first day of sickness absence, he was called to an absence review meeting and later required to phone in daily for eight days. He remained off work for several months due to anxiety and depression.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant genuinely believed he was being targeted because of his earlier claim. However, the contemporaneous documents showed that the respondent's actions were a response to his aggressive behaviour and his sickness absence, not his protected act. The tribunal noted that the claimant's memory was unreliable and that he reinterpreted events through the lens of his litigation.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant represented himself and relied heavily on his own recollection. The tribunal found that his memory was coloured by his belief that the respondent was retaliating. To succeed in a victimisation claim, a claimant must show that the employer's actions were 'because of' the protected act. Here, the respondent provided credible evidence of alternative reasons. The claimant might have strengthened his case by obtaining contemporaneous notes or witness evidence that directly linked the absence management to his earlier claim.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that employers can manage sickness absence and conduct without fear of victimisation claims, provided they have genuine non-discriminatory reasons. It also highlights the importance of keeping accurate records. For employees, it serves as a reminder that aggressive behaviour can have consequences and that a subjective belief of victimisation is not enough—objective evidence is required.
Similar cases
Security officer dismissed after back injury: tribunal finds unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A security officer with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a back injury. The tribunal also found that CIS Security Ltd failed to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated against him arising from his disability.
Victimisation after reporting sexual harassment: a teenager dismissed for speaking up
A 16-year-old front-of-house worker was dismissed three days after her mother confronted the manager about sexual harassment by a chef. The Manchester tribunal awarded £13,886 for victimisation.
Former postal worker's job application rejected due to gross misconduct: victimisation claim fails
A former Royal Mail employee who was dismissed for gross misconduct claimed his application for a seasonal role was rejected because of his earlier discrimination complaints. The tribunal disagreed, finding the rejection was automatic and unrelated to any protected act.
Harassment and victimisation: employer forwarded discrimination complaint to the alleged harasser
A former employee has won her harassment and victimisation claims after her employer forwarded her emails alleging sex discrimination to the person she complained about, who then called her. She was later dismissed.