Ms S Akhtar v Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust — 2026

The tribunal dismissed Ms S Akhtar's complaints of pregnancy and maternity discrimination, harassment related to sex, victimisation and constructive unfair dismissal against Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust. Six discrimination complaints concerning November 2022 events were out of time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. Ms Akhtar gave no reason for the delay or other evidence supporting an extension. The tribunal found no continuing discriminatory conduct and declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds. It also found that those six complaints would have failed on their merits.

The tribunal found that the departmental reorganisation left Ms Akhtar's band 6 role and duties in place. She was not made redundant and had not applied for regrading. Strategic and managerial responsibilities formerly held by Mr Lusk had passed to Ms Dyer, rather than permanently to Ms Akhtar. The new Head of Legal role required a recruitment exercise under the Trust's policy. The tribunal accepted that its management and strategy duties did not require the postholder to undertake reserved legal activities, so a candidate working towards qualification as a solicitor could be appointed.

The recruitment process was found to be fair. At the interviews on 5 December 2022, Ms Neila Patel scored highest overall, an external candidate ranked second and Ms Akhtar ranked third, below the threshold for appointment. Each interviewer ranked Ms Akhtar lowest. The questions were competency-based and equally weighted; they did not use new systems or processes introduced during maternity leave as scoring criteria. Information needed for the presentation was publicly available. The tribunal rejected allegations that the result was predetermined or that Ms Dyer had helped Ms Patel with her application. Ms Patel's appointment, and the resulting arrangement under which she managed the solicitor supervising her training, did not establish unfavourable treatment.

The tribunal rejected the alleged instruction to keep Ms Akhtar's application brief and the alleged pre-interview comments about feelings settling. Access to the confidential CEO folder had also been removed from other relevant staff, and Ms Dyer helped Ms Akhtar access the relocated departmental folder. Keeping-in-touch days were optional and Ms Akhtar had not requested them. The successful candidate was expected to start as soon as possible, subject to commitments such as maternity leave. Ms Dyer's offer to help with a future application did not show that Ms Akhtar was expected to leave. The tribunal found no evidence linking the alleged treatment to pregnancy or maternity leave; their coincidence in time was insufficient.

The March 2023 contacts did not establish discrimination, harassment or victimisation. Ms Patel's WhatsApp message of 27 March sought a discussion about returning to work and was found to be friendly and appropriate. Mr Chris Manning's call on 31 March explained that Ms Patel was Ms Akhtar's line manager; the tribunal rejected the allegation that he was aggressive, intimidating or rude. Although the grievance of 30 January 2023 was an accepted protected act, there was no evidence that it caused either contact or affected Mr Manning's conduct. There was also no evidence that the contacts related to sex. The tribunal noted that the material allegations of discriminatory causation had not been put to the relevant witnesses in cross-examination.