Case 2405366/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Wilson v Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2405366/2018
- Decision date
- 23 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren
- Panel members
- Mr J Ostrowski, Mr P Stowe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Wilson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a health visitor, brought claims arising from events across the Chorlton, Burnage and Cheetham teams. The respondent conceded that she was disabled by anxiety and depression, but disputed PTSD. The tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses where accounts conflicted and found that the claimant had not proved PTSD or PTSD-like symptoms as a disability.
The tribunal dismissed the whistleblowing detriment claims. It found that the alleged disclosures about colleagues' practice, rum cake, sick leave travel, record keeping, and team issues were not protected disclosures because the claimant had not established a reasonable belief that they were in the public interest and tended to show a relevant legal breach or health and safety endangerment. It also found that the alleged detriments were not established, were responses to complaints about the claimant's own behaviour, or were otherwise not caused by any disclosure; many allegations were also found to be out of time.
The sexual orientation and race harassment claims were dismissed on the facts. The tribunal found that the alleged sexual orientation comments and alleged naked Idris Elba photograph incident were not established. On race, it found that the claimant's name had been mispronounced or autocorrected in isolated circumstances, but not mocked because of Polish or perceived foreign origin and not in a way meeting the harassment test.
The disability claims were also dismissed. The tribunal found that the move between teams, investigations, informal counselling, absence management steps and other matters were not because of disability or something arising from disability. It found that the reasonable adjustments complaints about noise, workplace conduct and caseload were not made out; where Access to Work recommendations were made, the respondent had taken steps to implement them, albeit with some delay explained by the evidence.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claims of detrimental treatment contrary to section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 were dismissed. The tribunal found none of the alleged disclosures were protected disclosures and that the alleged detriments were either not established, not caused by any disclosure, or in many instances out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sexual orientation was dismissed. The tribunal did not find the alleged comments or alleged naked image incident established on the facts, and found no evidence of harassment because of sexual orientation. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race was dismissed. The tribunal found isolated mispronunciation or autocorrection of the claimant's name, not conduct making fun of a Polish or perceived foreign name, and found no conduct with the proscribed purpose or effect. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed. The respondent conceded disability by anxiety and depression but the tribunal did not accept PTSD or PTSD-like symptoms as a disability on the evidence. The tribunal found the challenged treatment was not because of disability or something arising from disability, and that the reasonable adjustments complaints were not made out. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability was dismissed. The tribunal found the alleged conduct either did not occur as alleged or was not related to disability; several alleged actors were found not to know of the claimant's disability at the relevant time. |
Legal tests applied
26 references- Section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 48(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension
- reasonably practicable test
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Babula v Waltham Forest College
- Blackbay Ventures Ltd v Gahir
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester
- Serco Ltd v Dahou
- Section 26 Equality Act 2010
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Thomas Sanderson Blinds Ltd v English
- Section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Section 13 Equality Act 2010
- Section 15 Equality Act 2010
- Sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Project Management Institute v Latif
- Basildon and Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Section 136 Equality Act 2010
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.