In person For the v Respondent — 2022

Mrs E F Djomseu-Takeu brought claims against North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust arising from her summary dismissal on 19 February 2020 after the Trust received a Home Office ‘no statutory excuse notice’ in relation to her right to work. The tribunal found that the Claimant had contacted ACAS in time, but that the claim form was not presented until 29 July 2020. Applying the section 111 time-limit issue, it held that it was reasonably practicable for the unfair dismissal claim to have been presented by 11 July 2020, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear that complaint and it was dismissed.

The tribunal accepted that the dismissal process was rushed and that there were shortcomings, including failures to ask the Claimant further questions about the Upper Tribunal decision she had obtained, to share the Home Office email with her before dismissal, to give her a written invitation to the meeting, and to keep notes. It also found that the Claimant had not appreciated the significance of the Upper Tribunal judgment and had not passed it to the Trust. However, the tribunal found that Mr Browne dismissed her because he genuinely believed, on the information then available and on advice relayed to him, that she did not have the legal right to work, and that he would have treated any employee in materially the same circumstances the same way.

The race discrimination complaints were therefore rejected. The tribunal found that the dismissal was not pre-determined and that the omissions in the process were attributable to haste, incomplete information and lack of right-to-work expertise, not to the Claimant’s race. It also rejected the complaints that the Claimant was not told of appeal rights at the dismissal meeting, and that she was told she would need to re-apply for her job if she wanted it back. Although those matters were found to have occurred or to have been overlooked, the tribunal found they were not motivated by race and were later corrected when the Trust wrote to her on 26 February 2020.

The harassment complaints were also dismissed. The tribunal found that Ms Priestman’s communication with Ms Jessop was directed to a senior manager with a legitimate interest in an urgent right-to-work issue, that Ms Brown’s explanation to staff at the 24 February 2020 meeting was limited to basic facts and aimed to avoid speculation, and that the 11 March 2020 email was sent at the Claimant’s and her representative’s request, with the content effectively dictated by them. On those findings, the tribunal held that none of the incidents amounted to unwanted conduct creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment under section 26 EqA 2010. No remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed.