In person For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant was employed as a Band 6 nurse in the respondent's sexual health clinic. The tribunal accepted that patient 3's allegations led to a disciplinary process, and it preferred Ms Adcock's account and notes of the disciplinary hearing as an accurate record of what the claimant said on 23 August 2018. On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant admitted meeting patient 3 outside work, buying drinks for her, allowing her to smoke cannabis, and engaging in sexual contact with her.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was conduct within section 98(2)(b) ERA 1996. It found that the investigation, the disciplinary hearing, and the appeal process were all within the range of reasonable responses, and rejected the claimant's complaints about late disclosure, witness attendance, suspension review, and appeal timing. It accepted Ms Adcock's evidence that she dismissed the claimant because she considered the conduct to amount to gross misconduct and a breach of professional boundaries and the NMC Code, and it accepted Ms Beal's appeal decision of 24 January 2019.

On race and sex discrimination, the tribunal found that the dismissal and the appeal outcome were not influenced by either protected characteristic. It concluded that Ms Adcock's decision was based solely on the facts concerning patient 3 and would have been the same for a white man or a woman. The tribunal also considered a remark by Ms Blanco on 6 February 2018 referring to the claimant as a 'large black man', but held that complaint to be out of time because the claim was presented nearly a year later and no basis for extending time was shown. The claim was therefore dismissed in full.