Claimant v Barchester Healthcare Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant withdrew her complaint of indirect sex discrimination and it was dismissed upon withdrawal.
The claimant withdrew her complaints of direct discrimination because of belief at allegations 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 33 and 34 of her particulars of claim and these were dismissed upon withdrawal.
The claimant's complaint of direct discrimination because of belief at allegation 45 was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success.
The claimant's complaint of harassment related to belief at allegation 45 was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success.
The claim was struck out in part but permitted to proceed on specific grounds including arguments that: the claimant as a senior employee should not have been covered by the vaccine policy; she worked remotely with no contact with residents; meetings could be conducted remotely; there was no evaluation of risk from non-frontline workers; and procedural unfairness in the dismissal process. The claim was struck out insofar as it relied on human rights or protected belief arguments against the vaccine policy itself.
Facts
The claimant, a senior employee and member of the senior management team at a healthcare company, was dismissed in connection with the respondent's COVID-19 vaccination policy. She worked remotely and claimed she had no contact with care home residents. She brought claims of indirect sex discrimination, direct discrimination and harassment because of belief, and unfair dismissal.
Decision
At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal dismissed the indirect sex discrimination claim and most of the belief discrimination claims upon the claimant's withdrawal. The belief discrimination and harassment claims at allegation 45 were struck out as having no reasonable prospects. The unfair dismissal claim was permitted to proceed only on narrow grounds relating to the application of the vaccine policy to her specific role and procedural fairness, but was struck out insofar as it challenged the vaccine policy itself on human rights or belief grounds.
Practical note
Challenges to mandatory vaccination policies are unlikely to succeed on human rights or belief grounds, but may proceed on narrower grounds relating to the reasonableness of applying such policies to specific roles, particularly senior remote workers with no resident contact.
Case details
- Case number
- 2206187/2021
- Decision date
- 31 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor