Mr T Fingi-Mlotshwa v Cygnet NW Limited — 2023

The claimant worked for Cygnet NW Limited at Cygnet Sheffield as a registered mental health nurse after previously working there as a bank worker. He resigned on 28 October 2022 with an effective date of termination of 19 December 2022. At the hearing, the claimant withdrew his two Employment Rights Act 1996 complaints under sections 47B and 103A, which the tribunal recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal. The remaining claims were direct race discrimination and harassment related to race. The tribunal also held that the claims were presented within the section 123 Equality Act 2010 limitation period.

The tribunal accepted the respondent's account of the 14 July 2022 welfare meeting in material respects. It found that Mr Griffiths and Gillian Kaye were responding to the claimant's concerns about conditions on Griffin Ward, that they were trying to contextualise the work in a secure mental health setting, and that Mr Griffiths did not tell the claimant to leave Cygnet Sheffield. The tribunal also found there was no initial resistance to the claimant's move from Griffin Ward to Pegasus Ward. It held that the move was agreed promptly, with supervision arranged before the transfer date, and that the claimant's suggestion that he was being managed out was not supported by the evidence.

The tribunal then considered the later incidents involving patient A, patient B, and the claimant's supervision. It accepted that the request for a letter of apology, the investigation into A's seclusion, and the suspension arising from documentation concerns about B were unwanted from the claimant's perspective and could have had an adverse effect. However, it found that these steps were taken because of concerns about the claimant's clinical judgement, documentation, and understanding of the respondent's seclusion policy, not because of race. It also found that Mr Moran's role as supervisor had a non-racial explanation, namely that he was new to the hospital and could bring a fresh perspective, and that the claimant's other comparator arguments did not establish less favourable treatment because of race.

On the direct discrimination and harassment claims, the tribunal applied the Equality Act 2010 framework, including the section 26 harassment test, the section 13 direct discrimination test, and the section 136 burden of proof provisions. It referred to Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal, Grant v HM Land Registry, Madarassy v Nmoura International Plc, Shamoon, Igen v Wong, and Nagarajan in its reasoning. It concluded that the claimant had not shown that the material acts were because of race, and it dismissed all remaining race claims. No award was made.