Case 1801740/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Nkechi Leeks Reference number 2301545-2018 v University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust Full merits hearing — 2024
- Case reference
- 1801740/2015
- Decision date
- 13 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dyal
- Panel members
- Mr R Singh, Ms H Bharadia
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nkechi Leeks Reference number 2301545-2018
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case over 8 to 12 April 2024 by video before Judge M Aspinall with Mr R Singh and Ms H Bharadia. The claimant had been conditionally offered a housekeeping assistant role in August 2017, but the respondent later withdrew the offer on 29 November 2017 after receiving unsatisfactory references, confirming a recent dismissal from King's College Hospital, confirming an HCPC strike-off, and after the claimant failed to attend occupational health appointments arranged as part of the pre-employment process.
On the discrimination claims, the tribunal found no credible evidence that age, disability, or religion or belief played any part in the withdrawal of the offer. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the decision was driven by the recruitment checks and the claimant's failure to complete the occupational health process. The tribunal found that the respondent knew the claimant's age when it made the offer, that the offer was made despite awareness of her general disabilities, and that there was no evidence her religion or beliefs influenced the decision.
The tribunal also rejected the claimant's allegation that the withdrawal was retaliatory because of prior protected disclosures. It held that she was not a worker or employee of the respondent, that the Employment Rights Act 1996 (NHS Recruitment - Protected Disclosure) Regulations 2018 were not retrospective, and that there was no evidence the respondent knew of any protected disclosure or that it affected the decision. The tribunal found the claim was being used to re-litigate earlier dismissal and strike-off decisions, described the proceedings as an abuse of process, and dismissed the claim in its entirety with no award.