Mr Kennedy Homodza v Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust — 2024

Mr Kennedy Homodza worked for Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust as a Band 5 nurse from 7 September 2018 until his employment ended on 2 May 2021, after he resigned on 22 March 2021. His case was that on Sunderland Ward he was treated unfairly by a group of staff he described as a Yoruba clique, and that this treatment amounted to race discrimination, harassment, victimisation and constructive dismissal. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and from management and ward staff, and made credibility findings on each allegation rather than treating the claimant’s case as a single narrative.

For direct race discrimination, the tribunal found that the main alleged acts did not happen or were not less favourable treatment. It rejected the allegations about refusal of bank shifts, unfair allocation of complex cases, the alleged comments attributed to Ms Oyewole, Ms Sanusi and Mr Lawal, the alleged false email complaint on 7 December 2020, and the locker allegation. Two incidents on 6 April 2021, where Olu Sanusi and Jean Ndingambote refused to take instructions, were accepted as having occurred, but the tribunal found Ms Sanusi’s refusal was because she only worked until the end of her shift and Mr Ndingambote’s conduct was not linked to race. Applying the approach in cases such as Shamoon and Nagarajan, the tribunal held there was no proved less favourable treatment because of race.

The harassment complaint under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 also failed. The tribunal did not accept that the alleged comments on 22 November 2020, December 2020, or 25 March 2021 were made, and it also found that the alleged comments were not shown to be related to race or ethnicity. The tribunal therefore did not reach a finding that there was unwanted conduct creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that some of the claimant’s complaints could amount to protected acts, in particular the telephone call to Mr Chikomo on 23 December 2020 and the emails of 4 January 2021 once the earlier race complaint had been made. However, most of the alleged detriments were found not to have occurred. The only detriments accepted as having occurred were the 6 April 2021 refusals to take instructions, but the tribunal found no link between those events and any protected act. The victimisation claim therefore failed.

The unfair dismissal complaint was advanced as a constructive dismissal case. The tribunal accepted that an employer must provide a safe working environment and considered the alleged cumulative breaches, including the alleged bullying, ignored complaints, shift and work allocation issues, and the request for transfer. It found that the main alleged incidents had not occurred, and that where complaints were raised the respondent did respond, investigated, or acted within a reasonable time. The tribunal also noted that the claimant continued working and did not press matters in the way one would expect if there had been a repudiatory breach. It therefore held there was no fundamental breach of contract and no constructive dismissal, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.