Case 3201663/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs H. Jaleel v Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2017
- Case reference
- 3201663/2018
- Decision date
- 25 August 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr G. Tomey, Mr M. Wood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs H. Jaleel
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs H. Jaleel worked for Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust from 11 December 2002 to 31 July 2018 and brought claims of direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, victimisation and constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found that the trainees' complaints in 2016 were about bullying and undermining rather than race discrimination, and that the claimant did not raise a race complaint to Mr Rothnie when dealing with Dr K's concerns.
Most of the discrimination allegations arising in 2016 and 2017 were out of time. The tribunal applied the section 123 EqA time limits, found no continuing act spanning the different incidents, and declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis because the claimant did not give a convincing explanation for the delay and the respondent would be prejudiced by the age of the events.
The victimisation claim failed because none of the three alleged protected acts amounted to a protected act within section 27 EqA: the 21 July 2016 email about trainees, the October and November 2016 conversations about Dr K, and the August 2017 grievance did not contain an allegation of race discrimination or an EqA complaint. The 31 January 2018 decision to re-advertise the DME role and the 16 April 2018 interview were in time, but the claimant did not prove that race was a factor in the advert or that the interview conduct was related to race.
On constructive dismissal, the tribunal found that Ms Maton's unilateral imposition of extra duties outside the claimant's DME remit lacked reasonable and proper cause, and that Mr Rothnie's decision to sit on the interview panel on 16 April 2018, and the way the objection was handled, amounted to a repudiatory breach of trust and confidence. The claimant resigned on 1 May 2018 with an effective date of termination of 31 July 2018, and the respondent did not prove a potentially fair reason under section 98 ERA 1996. Liability was decided only; remedy was left to a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found that the 2016 and 2017 allegations were out of time and declined to extend time. The only 2018 race discrimination allegation it considered in time was the decision to re-advertise the DME role on 31 January 2018, but it held that the claimant had not shown race was a factor in that decision. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal held that the April 2018 interview conduct was unwanted, but the claimant did not prove that it was related to race. Earlier harassment allegations were out of time and were not allowed to proceed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found that none of the three alleged protected acts amounted to a protected act within s.27 EqA: the 21 July 2016 email, the October/November 2016 discussions about Dr K, and the August 2017 grievance did not contain a race discrimination complaint or EqA allegation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held that the respondent's conduct of the 16 April 2018 DME interview was itself a repudiatory breach of trust and confidence, and alternatively that it combined with Ms Maton's earlier imposition of duties outside the claimant's remit. The claimant resigned on 1 May 2018 with an effective date of termination of 31 July 2018. Remedy was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- s.123 EqA time limits
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis continuing act approach
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan just and equitable extension
- s.136 EqA burden of proof
- Base Childrenswear Ltd v Otshudi / Madarassy burden-shifting
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board positive findings approach
- Unite the Union v Nailard harassment scope
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal harassment seriousness
- Land Registry v Grant harassment seriousness
- Shamoon detriment test
- Peninsula Business Services Ltd v Baker protected act specificity
- Durrani v London Borough of Ealing protected act context
- Omilaju last straw constructive dismissal
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust resignation response test
- Buckland constructive dismissal and band of reasonable responses
- Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle effective cause of resignation
- s.98 ERA 1996 potentially fair reason
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.