Ms S Lubanga v Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust — 2026

Ms Sarah Lubanga worked for Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust as a Band 5 staff nurse from 4 January to 8 September 2021. She was dismissed after extensions of her probation because the Trust concluded that she had not met the required nursing standards in its acute hospital setting. The tribunal dismissed all remaining discrimination and harassment complaints. It rejected her account that she disclosed specific learning difficulties at interview. It found that Sarah Walsh was told about them around 21 April 2021 and that Stuart Bendermacher received an express disclosure by email on 26 April, after the formal action plan began on 15 April.

The tribunal accepted evidence of medication errors and near misses, including administration of the wrong Sertraline dose, an insulin incident followed by a patient's hypoglycaemic episode, and an attempted administration to the wrong patient that a supervisor stopped. It rejected the allegation that Sarah Walsh deliberately led Ms Lubanga to the wrong patient. In an August 2021 practical assessment, Ms Lubanga took nearly three hours to administer medication to four patients. The tribunal accepted that Sharon Burfield and Laura Clarke were justified in revising the initial Level 3 assessment to Level 2 because of the implications for timely medication. Passing online tests did not establish that she had completed the required practical assessments. Improvements and positive reports were considered, but did not outweigh the remaining concerns about safe independent practice.

The direct disability discrimination complaint failed because disputed acts were not proved or the evidence did not establish less favourable treatment because of disability. The tribunal found that a nurse without Ms Lubanga's disability, but with materially equivalent performance concerns, would have faced the same requirements and decisions. The remaining direct race discrimination allegations also failed. The colleagues relied on as comparators differed materially in their responsibilities, experience or involvement in the medication incidents. Asking Ms Lubanga to help with personal care fell within a nurse's duties, and Sarah Walsh was on restricted duties. The requested leave was granted. The offer of a Band 2 healthcare assistant role followed concern that dismissal would leave Ms Lubanga without employment and Trust accommodation. Alleged comments supporting an inference of race discrimination were not made; the allegation at LOI 25.2 was dismissed following withdrawal.

For discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal accepted that difficulties with processing information, memory, timely calculations, prioritisation and managing a full patient workload arose from Ms Lubanga's specific learning difficulties. Those effects contributed to some performance concerns and to the decisions against further redeployment and continued employment. Applying section 15 and the objective justification test, it nevertheless found the relevant treatment proportionate. Patient safety and wellbeing, service needs, fair allocation of work and costs considered together supported the decisions. Supervision and feedback also served her skills progression. Some clinical tasks required timely action regardless of the number of patients allocated, including pain relief, urgent monitoring and medication rounds. The Trust had extended probation and provided support, but sufficient improvement had not followed in all necessary areas.