Ms Zainab Adan v Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust — 2024

Ms Zainab Adan worked for Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust as a CAMHS Practitioner. The claims arose from a dispute in early 2022 about RIO guidance, the way the claimant challenged management by email, later suspension from duty, an Occupational Health referral, grievances, and her eventual resignation in January 2023. The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the events were driven by race, religion, disability or retaliation for protected acts.

On the direct discrimination claims, the tribunal found that the claimant had not proved facts from which unlawful discrimination could be inferred. It accepted that she believed the treatment was discriminatory, but held that GP's references to 'ulterior motives', the decision not to investigate JFE further, the medical suspension, the email to the claimant's personal account, and the Occupational Health referral were explained by the claimant's conduct, the respondent's concern about her wellbeing, and the management of the RIO issue. The tribunal also held that the disability discrimination claim was not made out because the claimant did not advance evidence showing that the respondent perceived her as disabled within the legal sense.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant experienced unwanted conduct, but rejected the harassment claim because the conduct was not related to race or religion and did not satisfy the statutory purpose or effect. It found that the claimant's grievance about the RIO guidance, GP's response, and the later handling of her suspension arose from the underlying dispute and not from her protected characteristics. It also accepted KF's evidence that the phrase 'turf war battles' was a clinical expression used in context and was not motivated by race or religion.

The victimisation claim failed because, although the tribunal accepted that the claimant's 23 February 2022 emails about neurodivergent colleagues were protected acts, it found that the later treatment was not because of those acts. The whistleblowing claim also failed: the tribunal held that none of the relied-upon emails contained disclosure of information with sufficient factual content to amount to a protected disclosure, including the claimant's asserted point about the absence of an equality impact assessment. The tribunal therefore did not need to go on to the remaining whistleblowing questions.

The constructive unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found no repudiatory breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, either from the individual matters pleaded or from them taken together. It held that the grievance handling, medical suspension, OH referral, working restrictions, and the other incidents relied upon were not breaches of that term. The tribunal also found that the resignation email showed the claimant was concerned about moving part-time, and that her departure was not in response to a repudiatory breach. The notice pay claim failed because the claimant's two-month contractual notice was varied by agreement, with her last working day fixed at 15 March 2023.