Cases3204918/2021

Claimant v Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust

6 October 2025Before Employment Judge John CrosfillEast Londonremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(age)failed

The tribunal found no evidence that Alan Wishart told the claimant he would not invest in training because of her age or impending retirement. The tribunal rejected the claimant's account and found the successful candidate for the PA role was older than the claimant, undermining any age discrimination claim.

Direct Discrimination(disability)failed

The tribunal found that the claimant's failures to be appointed to roles or be promoted were based on legitimate performance and capability concerns, not disability. The tribunal rejected allegations that decisions were influenced by the claimant's disability.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)failed

The tribunal found that the respondent had not treated the claimant unfavourably because of anything arising from her disability. The tribunal found performance concerns were genuine and not related to disability-related absences or conduct.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)failed

The tribunal found that the respondent had made reasonable adjustments where appropriate and that the claimant had not demonstrated any substantial disadvantage arising from a PCP that was not addressed.

Harassment(age)failed

The tribunal found that conduct complained of was not related to the claimant's age and did not have the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

Harassment(disability)failed

The tribunal found that the conduct complained of was not related to the claimant's disability and where conduct was unwanted, it was not because of disability and did not satisfy the statutory test for harassment.

Constructive Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that the respondent's conduct, even taking all matters cumulatively, did not amount to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The tribunal found the grievance outcome was reasonable and there was no repudiatory breach entitling the claimant to resign.

Unfair Dismissalfailed

Because the tribunal found the claimant was not constructively dismissed, the claim of unfair dismissal could not succeed.

Breach of Contractfailed

The claimant's claim for notice pay failed because the tribunal found she was not dismissed and had resigned voluntarily without there being a fundamental breach of contract.

Facts

The claimant worked for the NHS trust from 2017 in various administrative and PA roles. She brought claims of age and disability discrimination arising from her work in the ER team, as PA to the Chief Nurse, and in the Patient Experience team. She alleged inadequate training, performance management concerns, and harassment. Following protected settlement discussions in May 2021, she went off sick, brought grievances, and eventually resigned on 1 July 2022, claiming constructive dismissal.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found no evidence of age or disability discrimination, concluding that the respondent's actions were based on genuine and reasonable performance concerns. The tribunal held that the claimant was not constructively dismissed as there was no fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. Settlement discussions were ruled inadmissible under s.111A ERA 1996.

Practical note

Protected conversations under s.111A ERA 1996 are inadmissible in unfair dismissal claims unless there is improper behaviour, and the tribunal will rigorously scrutinise claims that performance management was discriminatory where there is credible contemporaneous evidence of genuine capability concerns.

Legal authorities cited

Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International [1998] AC 20Omilaju v Waltham Forest LBCBournemouth University v Buckland [2011] QB 323Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 978Brooks v Leisure Employment Services Ltd [2023] EAT 137Leaney v Loughborough University [2023] EAT 155Fairthorn Farrell Timms plc v Bailey [2016] ICR 1054

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.21Equality Act 2010 s.26Equality Act 2010 s.39Employment Rights Act 1996 s.111Employment Rights Act 1996 s.94Employment Rights Act 1996 s.111AEquality Act 2010 s.13Equality Act 2010 s.15Equality Act 2010 s.20

Case details

Case number
3204918/2021
Decision date
6 October 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
13
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
PA to Chief Nurse and Deputy Chief Executive / Patient Experience Project Support Officer
Service
5 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep