Dr S Sreedhara v Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust — 2026

Dr S Sreedhara brought complaints of direct race discrimination, victimisation and detriment because of protected disclosures against Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust. The Tribunal upheld one direct race discrimination complaint concerning her referral to Practitioner Performance Advice (PPA). All other direct race discrimination complaints, all whistleblowing detriment complaints and all victimisation complaints were dismissed.

The Respondent accepted, and the Tribunal found, that the Claimant's four disclosures concerning patient care and safety were protected disclosures. The whistleblowing detriment complaints nevertheless failed because there was no evidence that the disclosures materially influenced the Respondent's handling of complaints about junior staff, its response to complaints made against the Claimant, its conclusions about communication skills, or the PPA referral. The Tribunal distinguished alleged inadequacy or unfairness in the Respondent's actions from treatment caused by making a protected disclosure.

Most of the direct race discrimination allegations failed because the Tribunal found either material differences between the Claimant's and Dr Crowe's circumstances or non-discriminatory reasons for the treatment. It accepted that concerns raised during the Claimant's hot week justified an urgent meeting, that written complaints were withheld because the junior complainants had requested anonymity, and, by a majority, that the proposed doubling up on 18 October 2023 was intended to protect patient safety. Although the Tribunal found that the clinical concerns raised by the Claimant about Dr Crowe were not investigated as seriously as they should have been and that the communication concerns placed blame unfairly on the Claimant, those matters alone did not establish that the relevant treatment was because of race. It also found that the on-call rate stated in the grievance appeal reflected a genuine belief about the applicable rate rather than race discrimination.

The PPA referral was upheld as direct race discrimination. The Tribunal found that it was a formal capability step with potentially serious career implications, was made without first informing the Claimant contrary to the capability policy, and followed an unbalanced account to the PPA that underplayed possible fault elsewhere in the team. It considered the markedly different approach taken towards Dr Crowe, the lack of meaningful investigation into concerns about other staff, the reference to the Claimant as an International Medical Graduate, the Claimant's position as the only non-white substantive consultant until relatively recently, and the absence of notes from key meetings. Those matters were sufficient to shift the burden of proof.

The Respondent did not prove that the PPA referral was in no sense whatsoever because of race. Dr Richards, who appeared to have initiated the referral, did not give evidence, and her email did not rebut the inference. The Tribunal also found that Dr Kerslake's explanations for treating Dr Crowe's position as a welfare matter while supporting the formal referral of the Claimant were insufficient to establish that race had played no conscious or subconscious part.