Ms Joan Hogben v Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust HELD AT: Ashford (By Video Link) — 2024

Ms Joan Hogben had worked for Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust since 19 December 2003 and was a Clinical Team Leader at Swale MIU. The tribunal accepted that she had disabilities including anxiety, depression and coronary artery disease, but found that the managers involved were aware at the relevant times only of her mental health condition and not of all elements needed for the section 6 EqA definition. It also held that the case was not defeated by limitation because the complaints formed part of a continuing sequence and, in any event, could be extended if necessary.

The core allegations concerned sickness absence management in March to May 2022: alleged failures to hold absence review meetings, alleged lack of support, a query about the NHS Spine Portal, a whiteboard name incident, a 22 March 2022 welfare call, the 25 April 2022 return-to-work meeting, the discussion of appraisals and a draft PIP, and alleged pressure to attend both MIU sites. The tribunal found that the 8 March meeting had been cancelled at the claimant's request, the 18 March meeting was postponed for good reason, support calls and Occupational Health input were maintained, the spine query was a request for explanation rather than an accusation, the whiteboard matter was dealt with promptly, and the claimant was given an extension to 21 May 2022 for appraisals and was not required to work physically at both sites during her phased return.

The tribunal rejected the constructive dismissal claim because there was no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, the sickness absence policy was not contractual, and the claimant resigned after finding another job and had affirmed the contract by working her notice. It also dismissed the section 15 discrimination arising from disability claim, the section 26 harassment claim, the section 27 victimisation claim, and the reasonable adjustments claim, finding no objective unfavourable treatment or detriment, no causal link to disability or the protected act, and no established PCP causing a substantial disadvantage. The tribunal found that the respondent's actions were directed to managing the MIUs effectively and were not found to be unfairly or discriminatorily motivated.