Ms L Millin (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2018

Ms Ovonlen-Jones was a Band 3 healthcare assistant at the Royal Marsden. The tribunal accepted that she had done protected acts by presenting Claim 1 on 7 July 2017, Claim 2 on 30 November 2017, and giving evidence or information in those proceedings. It then considered a series of later events between April and October 2018, including referral of complaints to investigation, questions about a covert recording, appraisal arrangements, Care Certificate sign-off, redeployment, a sickness absence warning, suspension, deferral of appeals and dismissal.

The victimisation claim failed because the tribunal found the challenged decisions were made for conduct or management reasons, not because of the protected acts. It held that Mr Dimech, Ms Lee, Ms Hurst-Baird, Ms Kitcher and Ms Colas either did not know or did not rely on the earlier Equality Act claims, or were reacting to the Claimant's behaviour, the live disciplinary warning already on file, and concerns about team working and patient safety. The tribunal also found that Mr Simmons did not accuse the Claimant of making a covert recording or threaten her over it, and that the Care Certificate had not been complete when it was not validated.

The direct discrimination claims also failed. On the 20 July 2018 sickness absence warning, the tribunal held that Ms Hurst-Baird was applying the sickness absence policy and would have issued the warning to any employee with the same record, so there was no race discrimination. On the 25 July 2018 suspension, the tribunal held that Mr Dimech acted because the incidents of 20 July showed the Claimant's behaviour had not improved, that Marvin Debil was not a valid comparator, and that race and sex played no part in the decision.

The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed under Part X of the ERA 1996. The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was misconduct, including the Claimant's refusal to be appraised by her line manager, the remark about sending a rape victim back to an abuser, and the incident with Mr Debil. It accepted that Ms Colas had a genuine belief in misconduct on reasonable grounds after a thorough investigation, and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal also found the procedure fair overall, including the decision to deal with the allegations in one disciplinary process and the later appeal, and it vacated the listed remedy hearing; no monetary award was made.