Ms C Urquhart, counsel For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant, Ms Roganavic, was employed as head of marketing from 25 October 2018 and dismissed on 31 January 2019 during a probation-related process. The tribunal dismissed her direct age discrimination claim. It found that Ms Okachi's remark that a hashtag style was 'old school' was made in the context of a marketing exchange about copy and social media practice, and that it referred to the use of capital letters and perceived out-of-date usage rather than to the claimant's age.

The tribunal also dismissed the whistleblowing detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996. For the December 2018 complaints about the smoking-status incident and the sharing of patient numbers between practices, it accepted that information had been disclosed but held that the claimant did not have a reasonable belief that personal data had been, or would be, disclosed in breach of GDPR. It found she knew the issue concerned totals of affected patients rather than identifiable patient data, and it found no reasonable belief that the disclosures were in the public interest. The alleged detriments from Mr Rogan's email of 28 December 2018 and Mr Lewis's email of 28 January 2019 were held not to be detriments.

The automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 also failed. The tribunal found that no protected disclosure was proved in relation to the alleged January 2019 conversations about the NHS app and diverted funding, because the claimant did not establish that any relevant information was in fact disclosed. It also found that the 28 January 2019 email about evidence for claims that the app improved emotional well-being was a challenge based on the claimant's own opinion, not a qualifying disclosure, and in any event lacked a reasonable belief and public interest element. The dismissal was found to have been for concerns about performance, behaviour, tone, volume of emails, collaboration, and work quality. The tribunal reserved the wrongful dismissal claim for a further hearing and did not hear remedy evidence at this liability hearing.