Mrs C Sawyers v East Suffolk & North Essex NHS Foundation Trust — 2022

Mrs C Sawyers, a Band 7 sonographer, complained after the incident on 25 March 2019 in the Ultrasound Department when Ms Lynn arrived angry about a scan of MG. The tribunal found Ms Lynn shouted and pointed at the claimant, used words to the effect of can you not read, and behaved rudely; it accepted that Ms Moroney later tried to defuse the situation by moving MG to another room for a further scan, rather than acting because of age or race.

The tribunal rejected direct discrimination because of age and race in relation to the scan itself. It found no factual basis for concluding that Ms Moroney's agreement to do the scan, her questions during the incident, or the second scan were related to the claimant's age or race, and it rejected the suggestion that the can you not read comment was a race-based microaggression.

Age-related harassment succeeded in two respects: the poor handling of the grievance after the incident, including the delay and pressure for an informal resolution, and Ms Macey's comments at the 29 July 2019 meeting. The tribunal found that the claimant had repeatedly sought a formal complaint, that the process was mishandled, and that the comments about Ms Lynn's length of service and the claimant's length of service were unwanted and objectively capable of the prohibited effect. It held that these matters were related to age through the seniority difference between the claimant and Ms Lynn, and it extended time on a just and equitable basis.

The race discrimination and race-harassment complaints failed, as did victimisation. The tribunal found no evidence that the complaint handling or the HCPC referral on 27 January 2020 was related to race, and it held that the referral was made because Ms Eves believed she had a professional duty to refer the matter for further investigation. It also found that the claimant's protected acts were the complaints of 10 April, 20 June, 24 June and 25 June 2019, not the March 2019 reports.

On remedy, the respondent conceded £110.10 for travel expenses, which the tribunal recorded as a successful unlawful deduction from wages and/or breach of contract claim. No final compensation was quantified for the successful age-harassment findings, and the tribunal directed a separate remedy process, including revised schedules, document exchange and witness statements, with a one-day remedy hearing to be listed after 1 August 2022.