Case 2301920/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Bor v Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2019
- Case reference
- 2301920/2018
- Decision date
- 25 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
- Venue
- London South Croydon
- Panel members
- Mrs J Jerram, Mr M Walton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Bor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Miss Bor was recruited in 2016 for a Staff Nurse post subject to occupational health and registration checks, but after an occupational health report said she should not do lone working, long days initially, or night shifts, the Trust withdrew the Staff Nurse offer because Maple Ward needed staff who could work the full shift pattern. The tribunal accepted that later bank work was casual rather than employee employment, and it found the claimant had worked a range of bank shifts and declined others, which was inconsistent with employee status. It also rejected the claimant's account that Mrs Punter made the alleged discriminatory remarks about diabetes and nursing, and found that adequate storage suggestions had been given for her insulin pens.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim based on the May 2016 withdrawal of the Staff Nurse offer and the February 2018 restriction from bank shifts and removal from the Bank Register. The tribunal found the May 2016 decision was out of time and, in any event, was taken because the Maple Ward shift pattern was incompatible with the claimant's restrictions, not because of disability. The later restriction and removal were found to arise from conduct on Swan Ward and Facebook posts, not from disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments claim concerning storage of insulin pens and access to breaks. The tribunal found no continuing issue after 2016, accepted that suitable storage was available, and found the claimant was not prevented from taking breaks. Occupational Health said she was fit for long days with standard breaks, but not night work. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Claim based on emails sent on 14 September 2016 about disability and reasonable adjustments, with alleged detriments said to follow from Mrs Punter and Ms Hill. The tribunal held the alleged protected acts did not amount to protected acts for section 27 purposes, the claim was out of time, and the alleged detriments either did not occur or pre-dated the emails. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claim based on alleged protected disclosures. The tribunal held only the email to the CQC on 12 March 2018 was capable of being a protected disclosure; the other alleged disclosures were not proved or were not known to the respondent. It found the restriction from duties and removal from the Bank Register were due to the Swan Ward and Facebook allegations, not the disclosures. |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Igen Ltd and others v Wong; Chamberlin Solicitors and another v Emokpae; Brunel University v Webster
- section 123 Equality Act 2010 time limits
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer & Anor v Southend on Sea Council
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd
- section 20 and section 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 47B ERA 1996
- section 48(3) ERA 1996
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.