Ms Marcia Marie Chambers v West London NHS Trust — 2026

Ms Chambers was employed by West London NHS Trust as a staff nurse on Berry Ward from 7 June 2004 and remained employed at the date of the judgment. She brought complaints of harassment related to race, identifying herself as a female of colour of the Caribbean ethnic group, and victimisation based on complaints she had made about alleged race harassment.

The harassment allegations concerned a series of alleged incidents involving Mr Kouadio and, in one allegation, Mr Tweneboa. The tribunal found that some incidents probably occurred and were unwanted, including opening blinds near the claimant, chair movement, a reaction when asked to help with a property list, writing on a shift planner, some sounds, conduct during handover, lateness, wearing a mask, and reaching over the claimant. Other alleged incidents were not found proved. The tribunal found that the acts which occurred were not related to the claimant's race. It noted that the claimant accepted her belief about race was because she could not think of another reason, and that race or ethnicity had not been discussed with relevant colleagues.

The tribunal found that the unwanted conduct did not have the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. It also found that the respondent took all reasonable steps to prevent further unwanted conduct, including informal handling under the Dignity at Work Policy, advising the claimant and Mr Kouadio to avoid each other, attempting mediation, trying to separate shifts where possible, and offering the claimant the opportunity to move wards. The harassment complaint was not well-founded and was dismissed.

For victimisation, the tribunal found that the claimant's 9 August 2021 complaint referring to cultural racism and her 3 June 2022 complaint referring back to it were protected acts. Her 10 September 2022 email was not a protected act because it did not refer to race and only asked when matters would be dealt with. The tribunal found no detriment: the grievance was resolved by the fact-finding outcome sent on 14 November 2023, the evidence did not establish an unsafe working environment, and the claimant's cardiac condition was not shown to have been caused by work-related stress or anxiety. The victimisation complaint was not well-founded and was dismissed.

Because the substantive claims were dismissed, the tribunal did not need to decide the time limit issue. On costs, the tribunal found that the claimant had been on notice of difficulties with the claims from the deposit order and subsequent costs warnings, and that pursuing the harassment and victimisation claims was unreasonable and that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success. It ordered the claimant to pay the respondent £15,000 in costs within 28 days. No compensation or other remedy was awarded to the claimant.