In person For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant worked for the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust from June 2018, first as a Receptionist/Administrator and later as a Ward Administrator after a disciplinary outcome. The tribunal accepted that he was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 throughout the relevant period, with psoriasis known from the outset, anxiety and depression known from December 2018, and HIV known to the respondent only from January 2020. He was dismissed on 2 November 2020 on capability/ill-health grounds after a long period of absence, and the tribunal dismissed the claim in full.

On the race discrimination claims, the tribunal found that the refusal of Christmas 2019 leave was the application of a genuine leave policy limiting annual leave to one Ward Administrator at a time, and that a comparable UK-born employee in the same circumstances would have been treated the same. It rejected the allegation that the process was a plot or conspiracy against the claimant, and recorded that one race allegation dated 13 April 2019 had been withdrawn during the hearing. The tribunal also rejected the race harassment allegation arising from the 24 May 2019 grievance meeting, finding that the conduct was tied to a heated workplace disagreement rather than race.

On disability discrimination, the tribunal rejected the claim under section 15 arising from the 2 November 2020 dismissal letter, holding that the statements in the letter were not false and were based on the evidence before the decision-maker. It also rejected the disability harassment allegation concerning the 12 April 2019 ward-cover request: although the claimant’s refusal to move wards was accepted to be disability-related and the request caused him stress, the tribunal held that the request was a reasonable operational instruction in a hospital and that the response was proportionate to the legitimate aim of ensuring cover.

The reasonable adjustments claims also failed. The tribunal accepted that some PCPs existed, including the annual leave rule, the no-recording rule for informal grievance meetings, parts of the grievance process, and the mock CQC exercise, but found either that no substantial disadvantage had been shown, the proposed adjustment was not reasonable, or the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have known of the relevant disadvantage in the particular circumstances. The victimisation claim failed because, although some of the claimant’s later complaints were accepted as protected acts, the tribunal found the alleged detriments were not because of those acts. The whistleblowing detriment claim failed because the 6 August 2019 letter was found not to involve a public interest disclosure for the purposes of the claim, and the unfair dismissal claim failed because the dismissal was held to be within the reasonable range of responses for a capability dismissal. No monetary award was made.