Case 2408343/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Dr G Challis v East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408343/2022
- Decision date
- 11 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr A Egerton, Mr P Stowe
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Dr G Challis
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Dr Challis was a junior doctor whose second rotation in the Breast team was affected by pregnancy-related illness, the requirement to shield during the covid period, and impending maternity leave. It accepted that there were practical difficulties around remote work, including the lack of a Trust laptop, but found those difficulties arose from pandemic-era equipment shortages, funding and IT constraints, and not because of pregnancy or maternity.
In relation to the pregnancy and maternity discrimination allegations, the tribunal found that a number of the matters complained of were not unfavourable treatment at all, and that where treatment was arguably unfavourable, pregnancy or maternity was the context rather than the reason for it. In particular, it found Mr Kumar was raising genuine concerns about evidencing training competencies, rather than threatening or punishing the claimant because of pregnancy, illness or maternity leave. The tribunal did find that his discussion of a possible "career break" was confused and, to a limited extent, unfavourable because he was not sufficiently informed about the distinction from maternity leave, but it held that this was due to his misunderstanding and not discrimination.
The indirect sex discrimination claim failed because the tribunal did not accept that the pleaded PCPs were made out on the evidence. It found there was no blanket practice of refusing laptops, no proved practice of preventing staff from completing rotations when remote work arose, and the PCP about long meetings was withdrawn.
The harassment claim failed because the tribunal found the conduct relied on either did not occur as alleged, was not related to sex, or did not have the purpose or effect required by section 26. The victimisation claim also failed because the tribunal found no detriment in the grievance handling and no evidence that the grievance outcome was influenced by the claimant having brought tribunal proceedings.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Section 18 Equality Act 2010 claim covering the 12 allegations of unfavourable treatment related to pregnancy, pregnancy-related illness, shielding and maternity leave was dismissed. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination claim under section 19 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. The tribunal found the alleged PCPs were not established on the evidence; PCP3 was withdrawn. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim was pursued as related to sex, not pregnancy/maternity, and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation claim based on the bringing of proceedings as a protected act was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
18 references- s.18 Equality Act 2010
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Interserve FM Limited v Tuleikyte
- Amnesty International v Ahmed
- O'Neill v Governors of St Thomas More Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Upper School
- Indigo Design Build & Management v Martinez
- SW Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust v Jackson
- Blackdown Hill Management Limited v Tuchkova
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Royal Mail Group v Efobi
- Ishola v Transport for London
- Land Registry v Grant
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
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.