Dr F Butt v Airedale NHS Foundation Trust Heard: in Leeds and, on 1 March 2024, via CVP — 2024

The tribunal held that Dr F Butt was a contract worker for the purposes of section 41 Equality Act 2010 because she worked one day a week at Airedale General Hospital under an arrangement between her employer and the respondent. Her claims arose from incidents on 6 December 2022 and 13 December 2022 relating to the respondent’s Infection Prevention and Control and Uniform & Workwear policies, including the requirement to be bare below the elbows in clinical areas. The tribunal found that the policies did not clearly define clinical and non-clinical areas at the relevant time, and that there was a genuine difference of view about whether the corridor in question was clinical.

For 6 December 2022, the tribunal found that Mary Hytch challenged the claimant because she believed the claimant was not complying with the respondent’s policies, not because of religion or belief. The tribunal accepted that Dr Butt was a practising Muslim and that Ms Hytch knew this from the claimant wearing a hijab, but it found that religion was not mentioned in the altercation and that the challenge would have been made to a non-Muslim comparator in the same circumstances. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s direct discrimination claim on this allegation. On harassment, it found that the conduct was unwanted and had the effect of making the claimant feel intimidated and humiliated, but that it was not related to religion or belief; the purpose was to enforce policy, and the escalation arose from the parties’ reactions to the challenge. The tribunal also found the complaint about the comment on fingernails was not related to religion or belief.

For 13 December 2022, the tribunal accepted that Louise told the claimant she had been asked to challenge her about rolling her sleeves up, and found that this was less favourable treatment and unwanted conduct. However, it held that the treatment was not because of, or related to, religion or belief. The tribunal found that Claire Tilley had given a recent reminder to theatre staff to challenge non-compliance with IPC and uniform rules, and that the instruction to challenge the claimant arose from the earlier incident and from a desire to ensure compliance with the policies. The tribunal also found that the theatre audit on 13 December was part of the respondent’s normal random WHO audit process and was not targeted at the claimant.

Because both the direct discrimination and harassment claims were dismissed, the tribunal did not go on to determine remedy. No recommendation, financial award, injury to feelings award, personal injury award or interest was made.