Dr D Angelova-Dimitrova v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust — 2019

The claimant remained employed by the respondent NHS Foundation Trust and brought complaints of sexual harassment, sex-related harassment, victimisation, and detriment on public interest disclosure grounds. The tribunal found that the claimant had become convinced that rumours were circulating about an intimate relationship between her and a healthcare assistant, but found that no such relationship existed, no staff believed it existed, and no rumours of that kind were spread by colleagues.

Most of the alleged harassment incidents were found not to have happened. Of the incidents that were established, the tribunal found they were either not sexual or related to sex, or did not meet the statutory threshold of having the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, taking account of the claimant's perception and the circumstances.

For victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the claimant's 25 April 2019 complaint was a protected act, but dismissed the claim because the alleged detriments were largely not proved or were not actionable detriments, and the temporary redeployment was not because of the protected act. For whistleblowing, the tribunal found that the claimant's allegations about patient-safety incidents concerning Dr Donnelly did not amount to protected disclosures because she did not believe in their truth or that they were made in the public interest; the tribunal also found that the redeployment and delay in return to the NRC were explained by concerns about working relationships, patient safety, and the time taken for an investigation, not by the alleged disclosures.