Mr L Olayode (1) Mr O Azeez (2) Mr A Adenekan (3) Mr P Idama (4) Ms M Nguetsop (5) v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust HELD AT: Manchester — 2024

The case arose from the 1 March 2021 incident at Prospect Place, a mental health unit run by Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust, in which Patient A became dysregulated and aggressive and staff attempted to restrain him and place him in seclusion. All five claimants were black and said they had been treated more harshly than white staff after the incident. They brought claims of direct race discrimination and race harassment arising from the Trust’s responses, including suspension or exclusion from shifts, an NMC referral, and the handling of the later investigation.

For Mr L Olayode, the tribunal accepted that he was suspended on 8 March 2021 and referred to the NMC. It found that the referral initially failed to set out properly that Patient A had attempted to punch him, and it criticised aspects of the investigation carried out by Ms Rutter, including the failure to let him view the CCTV early and the failure to engage properly with relevant background material, including Mr Heath’s comments about possible targeting of BAME staff. However, the tribunal found that these failings were not because of race. They were the result of poor investigation practice and a focus on the mechanics of the restraint, not discriminatory treatment. The tribunal also found that the disciplinary panel later dismissed all allegations against Mr Olayode.

For Mr O Azeez, the tribunal found that he was precluded from further shifts from 9 March 2021 after the Trust reviewed the incident and his restraint-training record, and that an NMC referral followed on 11 March 2021. The tribunal held that those steps arose from his status as an agency worker and the Trust’s concerns about whether his restraint training was sufficient for work in that setting, not from race. The tribunal reached the same conclusion on the NMC referral, and it found that the allegation did not amount to race harassment either.

For Mr A Adenekan, Mr P Idama and Ms M Nguetsop, the tribunal accepted that they were temporarily barred from further Bank shifts at Prospect Place pending completion of learning points arising from the incident. It found that this was a reasonable safeguarding response, but that there was an unacceptable delay in arranging the training because they were Bank workers without line managers to progress the process. The tribunal held that the difference in treatment between them and the white nursing-assistant comparators was explained by their employment status and managerial arrangements, not by race. It therefore dismissed both the direct discrimination and harassment complaints brought by those three claimants.

On harassment, the tribunal considered whether the conduct relied on by each claimant had the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. It accepted that Ms Rutter’s handling of the investigation could have that effect in relation to Mr Olayode, but found no basis for concluding that the conduct was related to his race. In relation to Mr Azeez and the three Bank claimants, the tribunal found that the conduct complained of was driven by safeguarding concerns, training issues and Bank-worker status, and not by race. All ten claims were dismissed.