Mr M Jackson (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2018

The claimant, a consultant cardiologist, brought second and third claims arising from a long-running dispute with the respondent over clinical concerns, MHPS processes, grievances, and related workplace decisions. The Tribunal accepted that she had made a number of protected disclosures and protected acts, and it also accepted that she genuinely felt aggrieved about how she had been treated. It nevertheless found that many of the claimant's allegations lacked a sound factual basis or sufficient supporting evidence, and that the respondent's witnesses were credible.

The central management decision was the restriction of the claimant's clinical practice in February 2018 and the later decision to progress the matter through MHPS. The Tribunal accepted Dr Marsh's evidence that the restriction was imposed because of concerns arising from Dr Andrews' investigation, including concerns about patient safety and the claimant's working relationships, and not because of whistleblowing, sex or race. It found that Dr Marsh had proper cause to commence an investigation, that attempts were made to explore alternatives such as an invited service review and later a behavioural assessment, and that the restrictions were kept under review pending resolution of the concerns.

On the whistleblowing and victimisation claims, the Tribunal accepted that disclosures and protected acts had been made, but it found no causal link between those disclosures or acts and the detriments alleged. It held that the reasons for the relevant steps were the clinical concerns and service issues already identified, not the fact that the claimant had raised concerns or brought proceedings. The Tribunal also rejected the claimant's suggestion that procedural defects in the MHPS process or delays in the investigation demonstrated unlawful motive.

The direct sex discrimination, direct race discrimination and sex-related harassment claims also failed. The Tribunal concluded that the claimant had not shown that she was treated less favourably because of sex or race, and it found that the comparator cases advanced did not establish the necessary inference of discrimination. It relied on the respondent's explanations for decisions such as clinical restrictions, investigation steps, job-plan and role decisions, and the handling of the grievance and MHPS process, finding those explanations credible and non-discriminatory. The Tribunal likewise found that the conduct complained of was not unwanted conduct related to sex for the purposes of harassment.

The equal pay claim was withdrawn by the claimant during the hearing and was dismissed on withdrawal. The Tribunal's final disposal was that all remaining claims failed and were dismissed, with no monetary award recorded.