Mrs H Toheed v Dr J Akhtar 1804881/2020 — 2019

The tribunal heard consolidated claims by Mrs Toheed arising out of disputes after she went off sick with pregnancy-related hyperemesis on 2 March 2019 and then took maternity leave. It accepted jurisdiction under section 44 and section 111 of the Equality Act 2010, referring to Dave v Robinska on the proper respondent and to NHS Development Authority v Saiger on the need for actual evidence of instruction, causation or inducement. It also applied the section 136 burden of proof and the authorities cited in the judgment, including Glasgow City Council v Zafar, Nagarajan, Dunn, Johal and Indigo Design.

On the pregnancy/maternity allegations, the tribunal rejected the case that the respondent's approach to locum cover, sick pay mechanisms, CQC paperwork, CQC results, proposed partnership changes, and fraud or reimbursement concerns was because of pregnancy or pregnancy-related illness. It found there was no custom or practice governing long-term sickness or maternity cover, that many disputes arose from legitimate operational and financial disagreement, and that some of the conduct was rude, abrupt or heavy-handed rather than discriminatory. It also found no proper basis for saying Miss Allam had been instructed, caused or induced by Dr Akhtar to discriminate.

The tribunal further held that the allegations about exclusion from practice affairs, staff grievances, the work party, accountant meetings, fencing expenditure, and the performers-list issue were not made out as discrimination. It found that several events were explained by communication failures and the worsening relationship between the parties, and that there was no evidence a male partner would have been treated differently. It said that even if the performers-list allegation had been made out, it would have been out of time.

On direct sex discrimination, the tribunal rejected the allegations concerning the 19 November 2019 allocation of income, the 2 December 2019 withdrawals of £7,000 and £8,431, the NHS England performers-list contact in January 2021, the IT access issue in February 2021, and the expulsion notice in October 2021. It found that the respondent acted because he believed, rightly or wrongly, that the partnership agreement entitled him to do so, not because of the claimant's sex. The claims were dismissed and no compensation was awarded.