Claimant v West London NHS Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found invitation to informal absence meeting was in line with policy and more generous than required. No evidence Ms Spick made the alleged comment about holiday; comment was made to someone else in the meeting. Decision not to return claimant to WLFS was due to breakdown in relationship with line manager, not related to disability. No threat made by Mr Khan.
Most alleged protected acts were not protected acts as they did not relate to discrimination. Where protected acts existed, tribunal found decision-makers either did not know of them or the alleged detriments did not occur as alleged. Ms Hothi's decision not to return claimant to WLFS was due to irreparable breakdown in relationship with Mrs Mohindra and vacancy constraints, not because of protected acts.
Invitation to informal absence meeting was not unfavourable treatment; respondent treated claimant more generously than policy required by not commencing formal stage 2 process. Meeting never took place due to claimant's ongoing treatment. Ms Hothi did not prevent claimant returning to WLFS; she made reasonable management decision given breakdown in working relationship.
Facts
Claimant, a Senior Management Accountant employed by NHS Trust since 2012, was diagnosed with cancer in September 2022 and took sick leave until October 2023. She had previously raised a grievance in June 2022 against her line manager Ms Mohindra relating to line management issues (not disability-related). Following cancer treatment, she returned on phased basis to a temporary project role. Claimant wished to return to her substantive role in West London Forensic Services (WLFS) but was moved to Local Services instead. Respondent's position was this was due to irreparable breakdown in working relationship with Ms Mohindra following failed restorative resolution process, not her cancer.
Decision
Tribunal dismissed all claims. Found claimant was disabled due to cancer from September 2022. Harassment claim failed: absence meeting invitation was policy-compliant and generous; alleged comment about holiday not made as alleged; decision not to return to WLFS was due to relationship breakdown not disability. Victimisation claim failed: most alleged protected acts were not protected acts as they did not relate to discrimination; where they existed, decision-makers either did not know of them or detriments did not occur. Section 15 claim failed: no unfavourable treatment found.
Practical note
An employer can lawfully move an employee to a different role following an irreparable breakdown in a working relationship, even where the employee has been on sick leave for disability-related reasons, provided the decision is genuinely motivated by the relationship breakdown and operational needs rather than the disability itself.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3300934/2024
- Decision date
- 16 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 6
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Management Accountant
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister