Mrs U Izakiewicz-Kozina v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust — 2023

The tribunal decided the sole issue was whether the claimant was unsuccessful in her June 2021 application for a Band 7 Senior NET Developer role because she had done protected acts, namely her grievances of 2 June 2020 and 15 June 2020. It found those grievances were protected acts and that Mr Daniels and Mr Sahota knew about them, although Miss Lester did not.

The tribunal found there was enough circumstantial evidence to shift the burden of proof, including that the claimant later obtained a similar Band 7 role before a different panel, that two panel members knew of the prior grievances, and that Mr Sahota had initially denied seeing the 2 June 2020 grievance. It also found that Mr Sahota had, to some extent, been influenced by his general perception that the claimant was difficult to work with and lacked soft skills, and that he took account of matters outside the interview when scoring her.

However, the tribunal concluded the respondent proved the claimant was not rejected because of the protected acts. It found Mr Amir genuinely performed better at interview, that Miss Lester independently scored him substantially higher without knowledge of any grievances, that Mr Sahota's low scoring reflected his view of the claimant's soft skills rather than her grievances, and that Mr Daniels, if anything, scored the claimant more generously because of concern she might make further complaints. The victimisation claim was therefore dismissed.