Case 2305586/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Franklin v NHS England and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2305586/2021
- Decision date
- 5 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Members
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms N O’Hare, Ms J Forecast
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Franklin
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Joint Director of Equality and Inclusion, brought complaints of harassment related to race and/or sex, direct race discrimination, direct sex discrimination and victimisation. The tribunal found some parts of the factual background were made out, including that Ms Issar made comments to Ms Douglas-Todd in March 2021 about the claimant not pulling his weight, that the claimant was excluded from the direct reports meeting on 29 March 2021, and that a letter of 21 June 2021 initiated an investigation into a possible breakdown in trust and confidence.
The tribunal accepted that Ms Issar had genuine concerns about the claimant's performance and that the relationship between them became strained after the meeting on 24 March 2021. It found that the decision to initiate the trust and confidence investigation was based on those concerns and on a belief that the relationship had broken down. The tribunal questioned aspects of the handling of the process, including the unusual nature of the investigation and the lack of proactive management before it began, but did not find that those matters were because of race or sex.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's reliance on incidents involving other Black staff as a basis for inferring race discrimination. It accepted non-discriminatory explanations for Ms Issar's conduct and found no objective basis for concluding that she had issues with Black people. It also found even less evidence that sex influenced her actions, noting that the female job-share colleague was not in materially identical circumstances.
For victimisation, the tribunal found that the claimant's comment to HR that the disparity between the WDES and WRES teams gave the impression that NHSE was not taking disability seriously was not an act done for the purposes of or in connection with the Equality Act 2010. The victimisation complaint therefore failed, and the tribunal added that causation would not have been established even if the comment had been a protected act.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal found that the alleged conduct was not related to race; the claimant relied on the same six acts for harassment, direct discrimination and/or victimisation. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found that the alleged conduct was not related to sex; the claimant relied on the same six acts for harassment, direct discrimination and/or victimisation. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaint dismissed. Some factual allegations were found in part, but the tribunal found the conduct was not because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination complaint dismissed. The tribunal found there was no evidence that the claimant's sex influenced the respondent's conduct. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found that the claimant's September 2020 comment about NHSE not taking disability seriously was not a protected act within s.27 Equality Act 2010. It also stated that, even if there had been a protected act, it would not have found causation. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- Equality Act 2010 s.13
- Equality Act 2010 s.26
- Equality Act 2010 s.27
- Equality Act 2010 s.123
- Equality Act 2010 s.136
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Laing v Manchester City Council
- Bahl v Law Society
- Wong v Igen Ltd
- Pnaiser v NHS England and Coventry City Council
- Kirby v Manpower Services Commission
- Aziz v Trinity Street Taxis Ltd
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.