Case 8000792/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Member W Muir Tribunal Member P McColl Dr R Akintayo v Dumfries and Galloway Health Board — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000792/2024
- Decision date
- 15 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison Tribunal
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- W Muir, P McColl
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member W Muir Tribunal Member P McColl Dr R Akintayo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant, a black Nigerian consultant rheumatologist, succeeded in part in his race discrimination claims. The upheld direct discrimination findings concerned the failure or refusal to put his name in the consultant field of biologic prescriptions and the grievance outcome insofar as it sustained that practice.
The Tribunal also upheld a harassment related to race claim concerning the claimant's treatment on 11 February 2021. It found that the relevant prescription issue was a continuing act for time bar purposes and that it was just and equitable to accept the harassment complaint as in time.
The constructive unfair dismissal claim succeeded against the first respondent. All other claims against the respondents were dismissed, except that the claimant had confirmed he was no longer relying on the unlawful deduction from wages issue; remedy was reserved for a further final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
9 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 succeeded against the first respondent in respect of the failure or refusal to put the claimant's name in the consultant field of biologic prescriptions, and against the first and third respondents in respect of the grievance outcome to the extent that it sustained that practice. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Other direct race discrimination allegations and the indirect race discrimination allegations were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race under section 26 Equality Act 2010 succeeded in regard to the treatment of the claimant on 11 February 2021. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Harassment | Other harassment allegations were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claim of constructive unfair dismissal under section 95 Employment Rights Act 1996 against the first respondent succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation complaints following protected acts were dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 4 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.