Dr Angela Musso v Cutler’s Hill Surgery — 2022

The tribunal dealt only with strike-out and deposit-order applications. It proceeded on the basis that Dr Musso was disabled due to anxiety and had a medical exemption from wearing a face mask. She had started work as a locum GP at Cutler's Hill Surgery on 29 April 2021 and her engagement ended on 30 April 2021. The respondent's case was that the termination followed concerns that she was unvaccinated and working without a face covering in a clinical setting; the claimant said it was because she refused to wear a face covering and was questioned inappropriately about her disability.

On the strike-out application, Judge Ord held that the pleaded direct discrimination claim was not a direct discrimination claim on the case advanced, but was properly analysed as a section 15 complaint about unfavourable treatment arising from disability. Because there was no direct link between the treatment complained of and the claimant's anxiety condition, the section 13 claim had no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out. The harassment allegations were also struck out: the tribunal found that Dr Maclusky had reason to ask about masking and vaccination in a clinical environment, accepted there was no evidence beyond the claimant's account that he was aggressive, and held that the emails asking for comments on complaints and the referrals to the GMC and NHS England were proper professional steps rather than conduct with the required harassing purpose or effect.

The victimisation claim was struck out because the alleged detriments, namely the referrals, occurred before the claimant's 11 June 2021 letter before claim and could not therefore have been caused by a protected act. By contrast, the respondent's request for a deposit order on the section 15 allegation and on the reasonable adjustments allegation under sections 20 and 21 was refused. The tribunal found conflicting evidence on whether the claimant had been treated unfavourably and what adjustments, if any, had been made, and concluded that both disability claims were arguable rather than having little reasonable prospect of success.