Case 2301877/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Vivienne Lyfar-Cissé First v Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Second Respondent: Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust Third Respondent: Marianne Griffiths Fourth Respondent: Evelyn Barker — 2019
- Case reference
- 2301877/2017
- Decision date
- 12 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baron Lay
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms S Campbell, Mr S Goodden
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Vivienne Lyfar-Cissé First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDr Vivienne Lyfar-Cissé was employed by BSUH as Associate Director of Transformation from October 2014. In November 2016 a disciplinary outcome found that she had discriminated against Mr W, bullied and victimised Ms B, and failed to comply with a management instruction. In April 2016 the CQC had rated BSUH inadequate overall and criticised its leadership, culture, and equality issues; by 1 April 2017 WSH had taken over management of BSUH, and senior managers then considered whether the Claimant could continue in a senior leadership role with responsibility for race equality.
The tribunal found that Mrs Griffiths' principal reason for dismissing the Claimant on 28 June 2017 was that the findings against her meant it was not objectively credible or acceptable for her to continue to lead on race equality in the Trust. The tribunal held that the dismissal could fall within some other substantial reason under s.98(1)(b) ERA 1996 and, applying the s.98(4) fairness test, concluded that the process adopted was reasonable in the circumstances. It noted that Dr Findlay investigated, the Claimant met him on 16 May 2017, Mrs Griffiths met the Claimant on 14 June 2017, redeployment was considered, and the appeal chaired by Mr Viggers was dismissed on 11 August 2017.
The tribunal rejected the automatic unfair dismissal case under s.103A ERA 1996, finding that protected disclosures did not materially influence the dismissal. It also rejected the victimisation claims under the Equality Act 2010, finding no evidence that the challenged steps were taken because of earlier protected acts or previous race discrimination litigation. The whistleblowing detriment claims were likewise dismissed: the tribunal found no causal link between any alleged protected disclosures and the treatment complained of, and it ended by dismissing all claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed both the ordinary unfair dismissal case and the automatic unfair dismissal case under s.103A ERA 1996. It found that the principal reason for dismissal was that the Claimant's conduct meant it was not credible or acceptable for her to continue in her senior role, rather than protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Claims that the investigation, decision-making process, regulation 5 point, and dismissal were acts of victimisation because of earlier race-discrimination protected acts were rejected. The tribunal found no causal link between the protected acts and the treatment complained of. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claims that dismissal and the related detriments were caused by protected disclosures about race equality and BME issues were dismissed. The tribunal found the protected disclosures did not materially influence the decisions taken. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.98(1)(b) ERA 1996 (some other substantial reason)
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- range of reasonable responses
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.