Case 3202010/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Joanne Tierney v Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202010/2020
- Decision date
- 27 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Housego Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Joanne Tierney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Joanne Tierney applied in March 2020 for a six-month HR contract with Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust. She received a verbal offer on 27 March 2020 and a conditional offer on 11 May 2020, subject to medical clearance and references. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had not worked since 2009 because she was caring for her son, that the respondent asked for references from the last three calendar years, and that alternative references were discussed. A medical examination on 20 May 2020 was successful, but the offer was withdrawn by email on 22 May 2020 because of the reference position.
The unfair dismissal claim and the claim for notice pay and other pay were withdrawn by the claimant. The reasons record that she had not been an employee, and that even if she had been, she had not the two years' service needed for an unfair dismissal claim. No monetary award was made on any withdrawn claim.
The age, sex and disability discrimination claims were dismissed as having no realistic prospect of success. The tribunal accepted that the claimant and her husband felt a real grievance about how the references were handled, but found that she was not alleging the withdrawal was because of age, sex or disability. The tribunal considered the claim as one of indirect discrimination based on a PCP requiring employment references for the previous three calendar years, but held that the claimant's case failed because the respondent had not applied that requirement in a way that disadvantaged her by reason of a protected characteristic: she said she could have complied if the respondent had worked differently with her references, rather than that the policy itself created a disadvantage tied to age, sex or disability. The tribunal therefore struck out the discrimination claims.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Withdrawn by the claimant after discussion at the hearing. The reasons note that she had not been an employee and, in any event, had not accrued the two years' service usually needed for an unfair dismissal claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to a composite claim for 'notice pay and other pay'. It was withdrawn by the claimant and the reasons do not identify a more specific legal basis. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed as having no realistic prospect of success. The tribunal found no direct discrimination and no viable indirect discrimination PCP because the reference requirement was not shown to disadvantage the claimant by reason of age. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed as having no realistic prospect of success. The tribunal found no direct discrimination and no viable indirect discrimination PCP because the reference requirement was not shown to disadvantage the claimant by reason of sex. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed as having no realistic prospect of success. The tribunal found no direct discrimination and no viable indirect discrimination PCP because the reference requirement was not shown to disadvantage the claimant by reason of disability. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Provision, Criterion or Practice (PCP)
- indirect discrimination
- no realistic prospect of success
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.
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.