Case 3303282/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Giovanna Marino v Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 3303282/2021
- Decision date
- 25 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Havard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Giovanna Marino
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Giovanna Marino brought claims including unfair dismissal, religion or belief discrimination, and arrears of pay after her dismissal on 22 January 2021. In this reserved judgment on preliminary issues, Employment Judge Havard sat alone at Watford via CVP on 29 March 2023 and first considered whether the claimant's views about the coronavirus pandemic and COVID-19 preventative measures amounted to a protected philosophical belief under section 10(2) Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal reviewed the claimant's extended particulars, her December 2022 witness statement, and her oral evidence, and applied the authorities it cited including Grainger, Gray v Mulberry, Williamson, McClintock, and Forstater. It found that the claimant had expressed strongly held views and opinions about the pandemic, PCR tests, and masks, but had not identified a coherent or sufficiently defined philosophical belief. The tribunal held that the material she advanced lacked cogency and cohesion and that her case did not amount to a lack of belief in coronavirus, but rather disagreement with the level of risk and the measures taken.
The tribunal therefore concluded that the claimant had not established that her coronavirus-related views were protected by section 10(2) Equality Act 2010. That issue was determined against her, so the religion or belief discrimination complaint could not proceed on the basis advanced.
The tribunal also considered an application to amend the claim to add whistleblowing. Applying the amendment authorities it cited, including Selkent, Cocking, Mechkarov, Galilee, Palmer and Saunders, and Bexley Community Centre, it held that the proposed whistleblowing complaint was a new cause of action, that the application was made very substantially out of time, and that it would require further investigation and disclosure concerning events in July and August 2020. The amendment was refused because the hardship to the respondent outweighed any prejudice to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | Preliminary issue under section 10(2) Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held that the claimant's views about the coronavirus pandemic, PCR tests and masks were strongly held opinions or viewpoints, not a philosophical belief. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Whistleblowing | Application to amend refused. The tribunal held the proposed whistleblowing complaint was a new cause of action, was very substantially out of time, and that the balance of hardship favoured the respondent. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.10(2) EqA 2010
- Grainger criteria
- Gray v Mulberry Co (Design) Ltd
- Williamson v Secretary of State for Education and Employment
- McClintock v Department of Constitutional Affairs
- Forstater v CDG Europe
- Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore
- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Limited
- Mechkarov v Citibank
- Galilee v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Bexley Community Centre v Robertson
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.