# GRIEVANCE OUTCOME LETTER
## Worked fictional document
Date: 28 April 2027
Private and confidential
To: Hannah Elise Morgan, Senior Data Partnerships Manager, 42 Larchfield Road, Birmingham B29 6QW Email: hannah.morgan@example.test Employee reference: MCA-EMP-1842 From: Priya Nair, People Director, Meridian Civic Analytics Limited, 18 Colmore Square, Birmingham B4 6AA Email: priya.nair@meridian.example.test Subject: Outcome of formal grievance dated 14 February 2027
Dear Ms Morgan,
I write following my investigation into your formal grievance dated 14 February 2027 concerning the Head of Partnerships recruitment process, treatment after your complaint and the continued involvement of Daniel Price. I was appointed as the decision-maker because I had no involvement in the recruitment decision or the events complained of. I met you with Lewis Ahmed as your companion on 2 March, interviewed Oliver Grant, Eleanor Shaw, Martin Kellett and Lewis Ahmed, reviewed the recruitment file, calendar records, bonus plan, relevant messages and the evidence schedule MCA-EV-01 to MCA-EV-09, and gave Daniel Price an opportunity to respond to each allegation. I also asked the panel members to comment on the recruitment criteria and the phrase "cultural fit".
I have applied the balance of probabilities. This is an internal employment decision, not a determination by a court or tribunal. The findings below are reasoned on the evidence presently available and do not prevent either party from exercising a statutory right. I have kept personal information about Oliver and other employees to the minimum reasonably necessary.
## Allegation one: discriminatory promotion decision
Finding: partly upheld.
You alleged that the decision to appoint Oliver Grant rather than you was because of race and sex, contrary to the Equality Act 2010. I found that the published criteria required five years of partnership experience, public-sector contracting, line-management experience and partnership revenue of at least £500,000. Your evidence showed six years and eight months of relevant experience, twelve public-sector contracts, management of eight employees and 2026 partnership revenue of £1,240,000, which was 124 per cent of your £1,000,000 target. Oliver's application showed three years and four months, no direct reports and revenue of £438,000. The panel nevertheless shortlisted him under an amended, undocumented assessment that included "commercial presence".
The panel's contemporaneous scores were Hannah 17 out of 25 and Oliver 23 out of 25 for commercial presence. The scoring sheets did not define the term, did not give examples and did not show how it related to the published criteria. Martin Kellett accepted that his question about your "accent and cultural style" was inappropriate in a selection interview. Eleanor Shaw accepted that she asked about a future family commitment but said she was trying to understand travel availability. Daniel Price denied intending a discriminatory meaning but accepted that "better cultural fit" was not a criterion in the advert.
I did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that the final decision was made because you are a woman or British-Indian. Eleanor Shaw and Martin Kellett gave consistent evidence that they valued Oliver's presentation of a proposed pipeline, and the panel's notes recorded a higher score for that presentation, although the notes were sparse. Oliver's appointment therefore remains a possible outcome on the information available. I do, however, find that the process used an unexplained criterion, included an inappropriate race-related question and failed to record a fair comparison. Those findings justify partly upholding the grievance as a complaint about the fairness and quality of the process, but they are not a finding that the decision was because of race or sex. Because your direct-discrimination allegation is the allegation decided here, I make no separate finding under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 about indirect discrimination. I make no finding that Oliver acted improperly.
## Allegation two: victimisation after a protected act
Finding: upheld.
Your email of 27 January alleged that the interview question and "cultural fit" explanation might reflect race or sex bias and asked for review. That was a protected act. On 2 February, Daniel Price removed you from the West Mercia Data Partnership meeting; on 3 February he reassigned your executive presentation to Oliver and added "not available for strategic work" to the team calendar; on 5 February he imposed a weekly report on you alone; and on 8 February he wrote that your bonus would be "reconsidered in light of attitude".
Mr Price said that removal from the client meeting was intended to avoid a conflict and that the presentation was reassigned because Oliver had now been selected. He could not produce an instruction or client request recording either reason. The calendar wording was inaccurate because you remained available for strategic work. The team had no equivalent weekly-reporting requirement. The 8 February message had no performance evidence and the bonus plan permits reconsideration only for recorded performance or conduct matters, not for raising a discrimination concern. The close timing, the absence of an adequate operational record and the content of the message lead me to find that these actions were detriments because you made the 27 January protected complaint. Allegation two is upheld.
## Allegation three: failure to protect the process and working relationship
Finding: not upheld as a substantive allegation, but an administrative failing is recorded.
You alleged that Meridian failed to remove Daniel Price from all involvement and that his continued approval of work made the grievance unsafe. The investigation found that Daniel did not decide this grievance, did not access your confidential witness notes and did not control my evidence requests. From 14 February, Eleanor Shaw approved your client work and People Operations received your performance information. Daniel supplied factual project records when requested but did not provide a recommendation about the grievance outcome. I therefore do not find that Meridian allowed him to determine or improperly influence this process.
However, People Operations' 11 February response, sent before this investigation began, did not explain the temporary safeguards and reasonably increased your concern. That communication was inadequate administration, although it does not establish the substantive allegation. It will be addressed below.
## Remedial actions and implementation dates
1. By 5 May 2027, Meridian will remove the 3 February calendar note and place a correction on the relevant personnel and bonus records stating that your responsibilities were changed after a protected complaint and must not be treated as evidence of poor performance. 2. Daniel Price will not make the 2027 bonus recommendation. Eleanor Shaw and I will review your bonus against the published plan and evidence up to 27 January and after that date without penalising the complaint. We will provide the calculation by 19 May. This does not guarantee a particular bonus amount. 3. Your West Mercia account responsibilities will be restored from 3 May unless a recorded client or safety reason makes that impossible. A different senior manager will approve work and receive any performance information until 31 July. 4. Meridian will run a fresh review of the MCA-VAC-2701 selection process by 12 May. It will not automatically displace Oliver, but it will include an independent panel, the published criteria, a written scoring rubric, an opportunity for you to be assessed, and a written outcome. You may decline to participate without adverse treatment. 5. By 31 May, the three panel members and People Operations will complete training on equality in recruitment, protected acts, objective scoring and inappropriate questions. A copy of the attendance record will be retained. 6. People Operations will issue a written anti-retaliation and confidentiality instruction to Daniel, the panel and relevant managers by 30 April. It will prohibit retaliation against you or witnesses and require concerns to be reported to me. 7. Your line-management arrangement will be reviewed with you on 3 May. A neutral check-in with People Operations will occur fortnightly until 31 July.
These actions are proportionate remedies and do not amount to a finding that every consequence you experienced was unlawful. Meridian will not disclose this outcome more widely than needed for implementation, legal compliance or a proper appeal.
## Right of appeal
You may appeal in writing to Rebecca Holt, Chief Operating Officer, Meridian Civic Analytics Limited, 18 Colmore Square, Birmingham B4 6AA, or to rebecca.holt@meridian.example.test, within ten working days after receipt of this letter. Your appeal must state whether you challenge the findings, the process or the proposed remedy and give the grounds and any new evidence. An appeal is not a repetition of the original grievance. Rebecca was not involved in the recruitment panel or this decision and will arrange an appeal meeting at which you may be accompanied by a work colleague or certified trade-union official. The appeal outcome will be confirmed in writing.
You should not treat this internal procedure as extending any statutory time limit. A claim under the Equality Act 2010 generally has a three-month-less-one-day time limit from the relevant act, subject to Acas Early Conciliation and applicable rules. You should obtain independent advice about your position and any deadline. Nothing in this letter prevents you from contacting Acas or exercising a statutory right.
For service, this letter is sent by Royal Mail Special Delivery and by email to hannah.morgan@example.test on 28 April 2027. The company will retain the email transmission record, server-delivery confirmation and any acknowledgement, together with the postal tracking record and delivery signature. Neither route is treated as received merely because it was sent or posted; the receipt record will identify the date on which delivery is evidenced. Please notify People Operations if you need an accessible version.
Yours sincerely,
Priya Nair
Signature: Priya Nair Date signed: 28 April 2027 People Director, Meridian Civic Analytics Limited
Copy for implementation: Eleanor Shaw, Finance Director; People Operations secure case file MCA-GR-2702.