Case 2405988/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sheena J B Worthington v Norton Healthcare Ltd t/a Teva Runcorn — 2023
- Case reference
- 2405988/2022
- Decision date
- 2 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grundy REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Sheena J B Worthington
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Sheena J B Worthington worked for Norton Healthcare Ltd t/a Teva Runcorn as a sterile specialist from 19 April 2022 until 27 May 2022. The tribunal recorded that she accepted she breached the company's rules by taking photographs in a sterile area and posting selfies on social media that showed confidential information. The respondent relied on those matters as gross misconduct and denied any discrimination.
The claimant brought direct race discrimination and direct age discrimination claims arising from her dismissal. She relied on comparisons with Mr Garfield Hamilton and, at an earlier stage, Ms Virginia Lucaz. The tribunal accepted the respondent's case that those proposed comparators were not in the same circumstances as the claimant, and it found no evidence of less favourable treatment or any causal link between the dismissal decision and race or age. It also noted the dismissing officer, Mr Adam Platt, had no knowledge of Mr Hamilton having breached any relevant rules.
Applying the rule 37 strike-out jurisdiction and the authorities cited, including the no reasonable prospect of success test, the tribunal concluded that each discrimination claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck them out. It made no deposit order. The hearing dates listed for May 2024 were vacated.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant for lack of jurisdiction because she did not have the two years' continuity of service needed to bring that claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Struck out on the respondent's application under rule 37 as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Struck out on the respondent's application under rule 37 as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded as dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant for lack of jurisdiction because she did not have two years' continuity of service. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- rule 37 ET Rules
- rule 39 ET Rules
- HM Prison Service v Dolby two-stage test
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College no reasonable prospect of success test
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd
- Chandhock v Tirkey
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Ahir v British Airways plc
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- s.9 Employment Tribunals Act 1996
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.