Case 3301701/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Chimhini, Lay representative For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3301701/2023
- Decision date
- 22 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms L Jaffe, Mrs S Wellings
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr F Chimhini, Lay representative For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms Julia McLean, a Black Caribbean senior staff nurse at Bridgewood House, brought claims including harassment related to race, unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, direct disability discrimination by association, and wrongful dismissal. The tribunal recorded that the direct race discrimination claim was withdrawn by the claimant and that the disability discrimination claim was withdrawn as out of time. The reasons and conclusions therefore focused on harassment related to race and unfair dismissal, and the judgment did not give a separate conclusion on the wrongful dismissal / notice-pay issue.
The harassment allegations concerned a flash meeting remark, repeated phone calls during medication rounds, an alleged false safeguarding complaint by a resident, the claimant's suspension, the length of the suspension, grievance handling, and dismissal. Applying section 26 EqA 2010, Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal, and the later discussion in Carozzi, the tribunal found the evidence on the alleged remarks and calls was missing, inconsistent, or explained by ordinary management and safeguarding processes. It found no unwanted conduct related to race, and it also found no evidence that the suspension, grievance handling, or length of process was race-related.
On dismissal, the tribunal accepted the respondent's case that the claimant was dismissed for serious loss of trust and confidence after the incident on 22 June 2022, when a resident at end of life needed pain relief. It found that Ms Main genuinely believed the claimant had failed to assess the resident or reassure the resident's daughter, that Ms Mai's investigation was reasonable, and that the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses under s.98(4) ERA 1996 and Burchell. The appeal chair carried out further enquiries and rejected arguments about training, HR involvement, delay, and CCTV. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment related to race was rejected. The tribunal found the allegations unsupported or explained by ordinary management and safeguarding processes, and did not find unwanted conduct related to race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for serious loss of trust and confidence arising from the 22 June 2022 incident and held the dismissal fair under section 98(4) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim form and issue list referred to wrongful dismissal and four weeks' pay in lieu of notice, but the judgment does not give a separate conclusion on that issue; the reasons focus on the fairness of the summary dismissal for gross misconduct. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant withdrew the direct race discrimination claim during the hearing; the tribunal recorded that it was dismissed upon withdrawal on 5 December 2024. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Plead as direct disability discrimination by association. The claimant withdrew this claim during the hearing because it had been presented out of time, and the tribunal dismissed it. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Carozzi v University of Hertfordshire
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Iceland Frozen Foods reasonable responses test
- Sainsbury's v Hitt
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.