Mr Ogbonmwan, lay representative. For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant, a healthcare assistant who remained employed by the respondent, brought claims of direct race, sex and age discrimination, race-related harassment, whistleblowing detriment and victimisation arising mainly from grievance handling, a 2020 fact-finding process, training, leave and later grievance delays. The tribunal found the pleaded case was sprawling, many allegations were factually wrong or lacked particulars, and some named individuals were not involved in the events alleged.

On direct discrimination, the tribunal rejected the allegations that the claimant was excluded from the 2020 survey, mistreated in the 3 March 2020 and 19 October 2020 informal meetings, denied cannulation or IT training, denied leave on 2 October 2020, or had her sickness information published on the rota. It accepted that the claimant's January 2021 grievance was investigated by Ms Emes and was partly upheld internally, with recommendations for management training, mentors and review of staff-survey results, but found no evidence that the relevant handling or delays were because of race, sex or age.

On harassment related to race, the tribunal held that the complained-of conduct was either not proved or did not amount to unwanted conduct related to race under s.26 EqA 2010. It found that the emails and text messages sent during the patient-harm investigation were proper steps taken after complaints from staff, and it rejected the alleged comment that 'shouting is part of their culture'. It also rejected the allegation that the claimant was deliberately excluded from the anti-bullying survey.

On whistleblowing and victimisation, the tribunal applied the statutory protected-disclosure framework but found that several relied-on disclosures did not occur, were too vague, or were out of time, and that the alleged detriments were not materially influenced by protected disclosures or protected acts. It rejected the allegation that Ms Essel threatened the claimant after a CQC interview, found no manipulation of the grievance process because the claimant was on holiday, and concluded that the grievance delays, the investigation steps, the training and leave issues, and the alleged publication of medical information were not shown to have been motivated by whistleblowing or victimisation. All claims were dismissed.