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

Ms October was employed by Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust as a Therapy Radiographer from 27 March to 18 August 2023. The respondent accepted that lupus, hypothyroidism and recurrent depressive disorder were disabilities at the material time. The tribunal found that the respondent had constructive knowledge that lupus was a disability from the start of employment and knowledge that hypothyroidism was a disability, but no actual or constructive knowledge of recurrent depressive disorder before the last alleged discriminatory act.

The tribunal dismissed the reasonable-adjustments complaint. Although the respondent accepted the two PCPs concerning probationary monitoring and feedback and a clinical assessment where there were performance concerns, the tribunal found that neither placed Ms October at the pleaded substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled people. Her fatigue, anxiety, brain fog and depression were not shown to have been caused or worsened by either PCP. Alternatively, the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the PCPs would place her at that disadvantage.

The tribunal also considered the proposed adjustments. It found that Ms October had received regular managerial support and feedback throughout probation, including numerous meetings with John Tenny and support from other staff, so the proposed weekly one-to-one support had in effect been provided. The clinical assessment was discussed on 4 and 7 July 2023, the patients were identified in advance, and Ms October had more than one and a half days to prepare; the tribunal found that further preparation time was neither reasonable nor necessary.

The tribunal dismissed all 11 allegations of discrimination arising from disability. Several alleged events were not established on the facts, including a false report and reprimand in April 2023, overbearing supervision by Karun Pulani, absence of one-to-one guidance, repeated refusals to sign competencies, criticism by Mr Tenny, and being required to undergo the clinical assessment. Other matters—including reporting the First Day Chat, Ella Thunder's feedback email, removal from patient-facing duties, and the determination that Ms October failed the assessment—were found wholly or partly to constitute unfavourable treatment, but were not because of fatigue, concentration difficulties, depressed mood, brain fog, forgetfulness, memory lapses, slowed thinking, anxiety or difficulty focusing arising from disability.

The tribunal found that Ms October was removed from patient-facing duties because Mr Tenny and Helen Burland considered that she was not taking on feedback and learning points concerning patient safety incidents. It found that the clinical assessment was agreed as an opportunity for her to demonstrate competence and that she failed it because of her performance during the assessment. As neither disability-discrimination complaint succeeded, no remedy was awarded and the tribunal did not determine the time-limit issues.