Case 2301565/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Gissele Buckle v Ashford and St Peter’s Hospital NHS Trust and 2 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 2301565/2018
- Decision date
- 3 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Fowell
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mrs S Dengate, Ms S J Murray
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms Gissele Buckle
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved judgment by Employment Judge E Fowell sitting with Mrs S Dengate and Ms S J Murray at London South. The claimant, an agency midwife, brought race discrimination, harassment and victimisation complaints arising from a single night shift on 12 and 13 July 2017 at St Peter's Hospital. The Tribunal recorded at the outset that the claims against Your World Recruitment Group had been withdrawn and were dismissed on withdrawal.
The Tribunal accepted that Patient A and her partner were a difficult couple and that the partner shouted at the claimant shortly after 4.00 am. It also accepted Ms Mills' evidence that the claimant had earlier been found in the staff room when she should have been with the patient, and it preferred Ms Mills' account over parts of the claimant's notes where the claimant had written retrospectively. The Tribunal found that the claimant's main contemporaneous concern was the accusation that she had falsified notes, not any racial comment.
Applying Equality Act 2010 sections 13, 19, 26, 27 and 136, together with the burden-of-proof approach in Ayodele v CityLink Limited, the Tribunal dismissed the direct race discrimination, harassment, victimisation and indirect race discrimination claims. It found that no racially motivated remark was proved, that Ms Mills did not know of any alleged racial connotation, and that requiring the claimant to remain with the patient was driven by staffing and patient-safety reasons. The indirect discrimination complaint failed because no relevant PCP was proved, and the Tribunal said that justification would in any event have succeeded because of the high-risk clinical context. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed; the Tribunal found that no racially motivated comment was proved and that Ms Mills' decision to require the claimant to remain with the patient was for patient-safety and staffing reasons, not because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed; because the Tribunal did not accept that the patient or her partner engaged in racially motivated abuse, the harassment complaint failed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed; the Tribunal held that the written complaints relied on did not amount to protected acts under the Equality Act, and it did not accept the alleged English-speaking remark or a racial complaint to Ms Mills. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed; the Tribunal found that the claimant did not prove a provision, criterion or practice requiring staff to return to abusive patients, and said that justification would in any event have succeeded because of the high-risk clinical context. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Equality Act 2010 s.13
- Equality Act 2010 s.19
- Equality Act 2010 s.26
- Equality Act 2010 s.27
- Equality Act 2010 s.136
- Ayodele v CityLink Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 1913
- Laing v Manchester City Council and anor
- Chief Constable of Kent Constabulary v Bowler
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.