Claimant v Wye Valley NHS Trust

Claimant recruited to fixed-term rather than permanent role. Tribunal found this was not because of sex: roughly equal male/female split among those recruited; other men were also on fixed-term contracts; other women were recruited to permanent roles. Claimant not treated less favourably than comparator Mr Aamir.

Claimant alleged co-workers made sexual remarks or called her 'whore'. Tribunal found no credible evidence: Claimant unable or unwilling to particularise allegations, allegations inconsistent over time, and witness Miss Thomas gave compelling evidence denying using the word 'whore'.

Claimant alleged colleague told her to take back Christmas gift. Tribunal found Mr Bhat did not make the comment (he was travelling on the alleged date). No connection shown between any comment and protected act (FTSU concern). No detriment established.

Claimant alleged denied training programme in December 2022. Tribunal accepted Mr Bhat's evidence that training was only available to permanent staff, and in any event was never delivered to anyone due to lack of funding. Not connected to protected act.

Claimant alleged Miss Thomas swore at her saying 'f*** off' in February or March 2023. Tribunal found incident did not occur: allegation inherently implausible, Claimant's account inconsistent and changed over time, and was not mentioned during FTSU process. Even if it occurred, not sex-related and single incident insufficient.

Claimant alleged Miss Thomas's alleged swearing was sex discrimination. Tribunal found the incident did not occur. Claimant provided no basis for assertion that such remark would not have been made to a man.

Claimant alleged Miss Thomas's alleged swearing was victimisation. Tribunal found incident did not occur. Claimant's own claim form suggested any upset related to contract appeal, not FTSU concern.

Claimant alleged Mr Bhat humiliated her at meeting on 19 June 2023 by instructing her not to have further conversations with colleague Nicola. Tribunal found instruction was reasonable management action to avoid conflict, did not violate dignity or create hostile environment, and was not sex-related.

Claimant alleged restricted access to permanent position by being given notice and not appointed after interview in July 2023. Tribunal found redeployment process followed Trust policy correctly; Claimant on fixed-term contract entitled to guaranteed interview but not automatic appointment. Not sex discrimination: successful candidates were two women and one man.

Claimant alleged restricted access to permanent position was victimisation. Tribunal found redeployment process followed HR advice and Trust policy. FTSU concern did not provide plausible motive for Mr Bhat or other interviewers to victimise Claimant. Interview scores showed Claimant performed less well than successful candidates.

Claimant alleged failure to appoint her after July 2023 interview was sex discrimination. Tribunal found no evidence to support allegation that interview scores were manipulated. Successful candidates were two women and one man. Claimant unsuccessful because she performed less well at interview, not because of sex.

Claimant alleged failure to appoint her after July 2023 interview was victimisation. Tribunal found FTSU concern did not provide motive for any of the three interviewers. Claimant judged not to have performed as well as successful candidates without conscious or unconscious victimisation.

Claimant alleged grievance decision (by Dr Davies) was sex discrimination. Tribunal found no factual basis for this allegation. Claimant's case based solely on disputed interpretation of Redeployment Policy. No evidence decision was because of sex.

Claimant alleged grievance decision was victimisation. Tribunal found no evidence decision was because of protected act. Reasons given in grievance outcome letter accepted as genuine. Claimant's case based solely on disputed policy interpretation, not victimisation.

Claimant alleged grievance appeal decision was sex discrimination. Tribunal found no basis for allegation. Panel chair Mr McConkey was unaware of Claimant's FTSU concern. Claimant unable to explain how or why decision was sex discrimination.

Claimant alleged grievance appeal decision was victimisation. Tribunal found panel chair Mr McConkey was unaware of FTSU concern and had no reason to be against Claimant. Even if panel member Ms Jones did not like Claimant (which Tribunal rejected), this would not show decision was because of protected act.