Mrs M Stansfield v NHS England — 2020

The claimant was dismissed following a Joint Working Programme reorganisation. The Tribunal found there was a genuine redundancy situation and that redundancy was the reason for dismissal. It found that the respondent had discussed and agreed the process with trade unions, gave the claimant reasonable warning and individual consultation, applied the agreed procedure fairly, and provided support including an 18-month secondment and a further supernumerary period to seek alternative employment.

The indirect sex discrimination claim concerned policies of no regrading or re-evaluation and matching employees only to same-grade roles. The Tribunal found the claim was brought outside the primary limitation period and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. Considering the merits in the alternative, it found the statistical evidence did not show that women, or women who had taken a career break, were placed at a particular disadvantage, and it was not satisfied that the claimant was disadvantaged by the PCPs. It also accepted that, if justification had arisen, the respondent's approach was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim in a large reorganisation.

For disability discrimination, the respondent accepted that the claimant was disabled by reason of PTSD and had knowledge from 11 March 2021. The Tribunal found that the alleged PCPs relating to delay, trigger mechanisms, professional advice, and welfare responses were not applied as alleged. It found that once the respondent knew of the disability, the grievance and appeal were dealt with expeditiously given their complexity, and that the respondent provided reasonable support, including funding therapy, making an Occupational Health referral, instigating a stress risk assessment, arranging secondment, and providing a supernumerary role.