- IN PERSON FOR THE v - Mr E Walker — 2024

The claimant, who had been diagnosed and treated for cancer from March 2021, was accepted to be disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010. The dispute centred on pay and finance arrangements within Barton House Medical Practice and the Jurassic Coast Primary Care Network, including a contested August 2021 pay increase of £24,277 and later concerns about mixed practice and PCN finances. The tribunal recorded that those underlying factual disputes were central to the disciplinary process, but for unfair dismissal it was not required to decide which version of events was correct.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the sole and genuine reason for dismissal was misconduct. It accepted that the employer had used an external investigator, then a disciplinary process and appeal, and that the investigation was extremely thorough. Applying the Burchell questions and the reasonable range of responses approach, the tribunal held that the investigation, the conclusions drawn from it, and the decision to dismiss were all within the range reasonably open to the employer. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.

The disability discrimination claim failed on the dismissal allegation because the tribunal found the dismissal was based on misconduct rather than disability. It also rejected the complaints arising from the 29 December 2022 meeting, in which Dr Farrell questioned whether the claimant could continue working sixty hours a week and raised concerns about her health. The tribunal held that asking whether such working patterns were sustainable, particularly in light of the claimant's serious health condition, was not less favourable treatment because of disability and would have been handled the same way in relation to a comparator in similar circumstances.

The harassment claims also failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant found the remarks offensive and that they were related to her health conditions, but it found that Dr Farrell's purpose was to express concern about the claimant's health, not to violate her dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Taking account of the wider context, including the parties' then close friendship and the tribunal's assessment of what was reasonable in the circumstances, it concluded that the statutory harassment test was not met. All claims against both respondents were dismissed.