Mr Paul Bianca-Samou v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust — 2020

Mr Paul Bianca-Samou, a Black African biomedical scientist employed by Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, brought complaints of direct race discrimination, harassment related to race and victimisation. The tribunal considered allegations about access to a specialist portfolio, two October 2018 interactions with Elaine Moore, a disciplinary investigation about specimen handling, an attendance advisory notice, and the handling of the claimant's grievance. The hearing before the tribunal was on liability only, and the claimant remained employed by the respondent.

The direct race discrimination complaint succeeded in relation to the refusal to allow the claimant to undertake a specialist portfolio. The tribunal found that, after the merger, the respondent's training policy applied to the claimant and required biomedical scientists to complete a specialist portfolio. Lisa Williams, a white British comparator, was permitted to undertake a specialist portfolio after appointment to a band 7 role, and the tribunal found that she spent more of her time at Hillingdon Hospital than at Charing Cross Hospital.

The tribunal found facts from which it could infer discrimination, including the failure to follow the respondent's policy and procedure, the fact that the claimant's request was not considered by a training committee, and inconsistencies in the respondent's evidence about cross-site working and why arrangements for the claimant's portfolio were halted. The burden of proof shifted to the respondent, and the tribunal found that the respondent had not proved that the treatment was in no sense whatsoever based on race. It therefore upheld direct race discrimination for that issue.

The other direct race discrimination and harassment complaints were dismissed. The tribunal found that Ms Moore could have been more understanding about the 16 October 2018 tea break issue and that the 17 October 2018 discussion should as best practice have taken place in private, but it found no comparator evidence or other evidence from which race discrimination or race-related harassment could be inferred. It also found no race-related basis for the disciplinary investigation, the attendance advisory notice, the handling of the first grievance, the performance issues, the quality control record entry, or the March 2019 exchange about the claimant wanting to work at Charing Cross Hospital.

The victimisation complaint failed because the tribunal found that the claimant's 31 July 2018 grievance was not a protected act. The grievance referred to bullying, harassment and prejudice, but did not refer to race, discrimination, race harassment, or the Equality Act, and was more reasonably understood as a complaint of general bullying and harassment.

The tribunal found that the refusal to allow the claimant to undertake a specialist portfolio was conduct extending over a period for the purposes of section 123(3) of the Equality Act 2010 and that the complaint was presented in time. Remedy was not determined in this judgment; the tribunal stated that the hearing was liability only and that notice of a remedy hearing and case management orders would be sent separately.