Ms. M October v Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust — 2026

The tribunal unanimously dismissed Ms October’s complaints of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments against Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust. She worked as a Band 5 therapy radiographer from 27 March to 18 August 2023. The Trust accepted that lupus, hypothyroidism and recurrent depressive disorder, of which anxiety was a symptom, were disabilities at the relevant times. Her dismissal and the subsequent appeal were outside the allegations the tribunal decided.

The tribunal found that the Trust had constructive knowledge that her lupus amounted to a disability from the start of employment. It also found knowledge of hypothyroidism as a disability, relying on line manager John Tenny’s express witness statement and the information about overlapping symptoms. Although some staff knew she experienced anxiety, the Trust had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of recurrent depressive disorder by the last alleged discriminatory act on 11 July 2023. The tribunal considered it reasonable for management to rely on occupational health advice after seeking clarification; information held only by the external occupational health provider was not attributed to the Trust.

Several section 15 allegations failed on the facts. The tribunal found no false report about out-of-hours contact and no reprimand by Tenny, who had explained the team’s contact policy. It rejected the allegations that Karun Palani had micromanaged Ms October or stood within 30cm of her, and that she had received no one-to-one guidance on completing competencies. It also rejected allegations of repeated refusals to sign completed competencies. Praveen Gopi had declined to sign one imaging workbook because he was not satisfied she could perform those duties safely and independently. The tribunal found no established refusal to sign an entry or reprimand by Nawda Fazel.

Reporting Ms October for undertaking a First Day Chat without signed competence amounted to unfavourable treatment in circumstances where a senior colleague had asked her to undertake it and no enquiry with her was apparent. Ella Thunder’s email to Tenny containing negative feedback also amounted to unfavourable treatment. Neither report was shown to be because of the pleaded matters arising from disability. The tribunal found that Ms October had advance information about the clinical concerns discussed on 20 June 2023. Discussing those concerns, and giving performance feedback during probation, did not amount to unfavourable treatment in the circumstances.

Following patient safety incidents on 23 and 27 June 2023, the Trust removed Ms October from patient-facing duties on 27 June. The tribunal found this unfavourable but attributed the decision to concerns about her response to feedback, learning points and patient safety, with no link to the pleaded disability-related symptoms. It found that she had agreed to the clinical assessment on 11 July, rather than being required to undertake it as alleged, and that the assessment arrangements were not unfavourable. The finding that she had failed the assessment was unfavourable treatment, but the tribunal attributed it to her performance during the assessment. The assessors had needed to take over imaging tasks. No causal link to the pleaded matters arising from disability was established.