Case 1303320/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss. I Potts, In Person v Mr. A. Gibson, Solicitor — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303320/2022
- Decision date
- 18 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Ms. M. Stewart, Mr. K. Hutchinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss. I Potts, In Person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Potts worked as a band 5 theatre nurse from 4 January 2021 on probation, in a hospital environment the tribunal accepted was under significant COVID pressure. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and eight witnesses, and preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses on the disputed events. It found the claimant's evidence inconsistent in places and said she tended to embellish aspects of her account.
The direct race discrimination and harassment claims were based on alleged remarks and treatment including 'hired help', 'black scooby doo' and 'baa baa black sheep', being left to clean alone, queueing for a COVID vaccination, and later grievance handling. The tribunal rejected the core factual allegations, found the cleaning issue unlikely in the COVID context because staff all cleaned, accepted that the vaccination arrangements were driven by timing and staffing rather than race, and held that the alleged comments were not made. It also rejected the allegation that the grievance outcome or Andrew Williams's response in February 2022 were race-related, and found the claimant's resignation on 1 April 2022 was not a constructive dismissal caused by discriminatory treatment.
On age discrimination, the tribunal found the two younger nurses recruited into urology/ENT were filling vacancies after the claimant had already moved, by consent, to general surgery, and were not replacements for her. It accepted Ms Reay's evidence that she would not have said the alleged 'late stage of her life trying to secure a pension pot' remark and rejected that allegation.
The victimisation claim failed despite the tribunal accepting that the claimant had made four protected acts, including the grievance of 11 March 2021, the statements made at the 13 July 2021 milestone review, the 31 July 2021 grievance, and the 16 February 2022 complaint. It found the move to general surgery was a supportive step, the invitation to investigation was a proper response to serious allegations, the first milestone and probation processes were handled under the Trust procedure, the suspension on 16 February 2022 was prompted by a series of behaviour concerns, and the referral to the Nursing and Midwifery Council on 5 May 2022 was made because Mrs Sarson considered it professionally appropriate in light of multiple concerns from different staff, not because the claimant had done protected acts.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim covering alleged remarks and treatment on 2 February 2021, 22 February 2021, 10 March 2021, the grievance outcome of 15 October 2021, Andrew Williams's response of 16 February 2022, and the resignation on 1 April 2022 said to be constructive dismissal. The tribunal rejected the factual allegations or found the treatment was not because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Claim based on alleged replacement by two younger nurses in urology/ENT and an alleged 5 April 2021 remark about securing a pension pot. The tribunal found the younger nurses filled vacancies after the claimant had moved to general surgery and rejected the alleged remark. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race claim based on the alleged conduct of 2 February 2021, 22 February 2021 and 10 March 2021. The tribunal found the key alleged incidents did not occur and that the vaccination arrangement was not race-related or sufficiently adverse. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal accepted four protected acts but rejected each alleged detriment, or found it was an ordinary management or probation step taken for non-discriminatory reasons. It held the acts were not done because of the protected acts. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- Woodhouse v West NW Homes Leeds Ltd
- Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police v Bailey
- Adjei v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.