Mrs J Walker v South Tees Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2023

The claimant, Mrs J Walker, brought five claims of victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 arising out of workplace interactions and grievance handling after her earlier tribunal proceedings. The tribunal found the claimant had done a protected act by bringing those earlier proceedings, which had included Equality Act allegations, and it heard evidence from the claimant and six witnesses called by the respondent. It concluded that, where evidence conflicted, the respondent's witnesses were generally truthful, honest and reliable, and that the claimant's evidence was often embellished and prone to exaggeration.

The first allegation concerned comments made by Jenna Holmes on 26 May 2021 about the claimant working with Lauren Walker after the earlier tribunal case. The tribunal found Miss Holmes' initial question was clumsy and insensitive and that it caused the claimant a detriment, so the victimisation claim succeeded. It accepted that the claimant was genuinely offended, but found the exchange was brief and that Miss Holmes apologised promptly. Injury to feelings was assessed as minimal and was awarded at £1,000.

The second allegation concerned the respondent's handling of the grievance raised about the 26 May 2021 incident. The tribunal found there was an unreasonable delay of more than six months in concluding that grievance. It held that part of the delay was influenced by the respondent's reluctance to engage robustly with the claimant because she had previously brought tribunal proceedings naming an individual employee, although the claimant's insistence on the formal route also contributed. That complaint also succeeded and attracted £1,000 for injury to feelings.

The third allegation, about remarks said to have been made by Eilish Shaw on 11 June 2021, was dismissed. The tribunal preferred Miss Shaw's evidence, found the claimant had not proved her version of events on the balance of probabilities, and considered it highly unlikely that Miss Shaw had behaved as alleged. It also held that any event on that day was not connected with the earlier protected act.

The fourth allegation concerned a grievance dated 13 April 2022 about a further alleged data breach. The tribunal found any delay in investigating that grievance was caused almost entirely by the claimant's own conduct, including her objections to the proposed investigatory process and the use of AuditOne, rather than by the earlier proceedings. It therefore dismissed that claim. The fifth allegation, about an alleged refusal on 17 October 2022 to increase the claimant's hours, was also dismissed. The tribunal preferred Miss Swan's evidence that no agreement had been made to increase hours, found the recruitment process for the advertised posts was already underway, and accepted that the claimant could have applied for the vacancies or used the respondent's flexible working process.