Case 4102143/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Gray Mr A Ross Dr A v NHS Education for Scotland and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 4102143/2017
- Decision date
- 24 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
- Venue
- Edinburgh
- Panel members
- Mr S Gray, Mr A Ross
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr S Gray Mr A Ross Dr A
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a trainee anaesthetist with recurrent depressive disorder, brought disability discrimination claims against NHS Education for Scotland and Lothian Health Board, and unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims against Lothian Health Board. The tribunal found that NHS Education for Scotland had actual or constructive knowledge of disability from mid-December 2013 at the latest, and that several training-related PCPs were applied to the claimant.
Against NHS Education for Scotland, the tribunal found that the PCPs caused group and individual disadvantage and that the Outcome 3 and Outcome 4 arose in consequence of disability. However, it dismissed the indirect discrimination, section 15, and reasonable adjustment claims because it held the relevant treatment or PCPs were justified, and the proposed adjustments were not reasonable, in light of the patient safety risk it found could not be adequately managed.
Against Lothian Health Board, the tribunal dismissed the reasonable adjustments claim because it found that the Board had not applied the training-related PCPs. It upheld the unfair dismissal claim because the Board did not complete its consideration of alternative employment before dismissing the appeal against dismissal. It also upheld the section 15 disability discrimination claim because dismissal was found to be disproportionate while a potentially suitable non-training vacancy had not been assessed for competence and patient safety.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Against the first respondent: discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010, concerning the June 2014 Outcome 3 and June 2016 Outcome 4, was dismissed. The tribunal found unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of disability but held the treatment was justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim involving patient safety. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Against the first respondent: indirect disability discrimination under section 19 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. The tribunal found relevant PCPs were applied and caused group and individual disadvantage, but held they were justified as proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Against the first respondent: failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. The tribunal held the proposed adjustments would not have been reasonable because they would not sufficiently address the patient safety risk it identified. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Against the second respondent: failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed because the tribunal found the second respondent had not applied the relevant PCPs to the claimant. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
30 references- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 19 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 53(7) Equality Act 2010
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Gallop v Newport City Council
- Department for Work and Pensions v Alam
- Department for Work and Pensions v Hall
- SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle
- United First Partners Research v Carreras
- Harrod v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police
- Ministry of Defence v DeBique
- Burke v College of Law
- Essop v Home Office
- Eweida v British Airways plc
- Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
- Kutz-Bauer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg
- Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College
- Hardys & Hansons v Lax
- Cadman v HSE
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Williams v The Trustees of Swansea University Pension & Assurance Scheme
- City of York Council v Grosset
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Higgins
- Nottingham City Transport Ltd v Harvey
- Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v Foster
- Noor v Foreign & Commonwealth Office v Wiltshire County Council v Morse v Wiltshire County Council
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.