Claimant v East Lancashire NHS Hospitals Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found claimant failed to discharge burden of proof under s.136(2) EqA. No facts from which tribunal could conclude less favourable treatment because claimant was a man. Comments alleged not made or not related to sex. No evidence respondents assumed claimant was perpetrator of domestic abuse rather than victim.
Tribunal found key comment ('banned from seeing children') was not made as alleged. Comment actually made was sympathetic, used in different context, not unwanted, not related to sex, and did not have prohibited purpose or effect. Other alleged acts of harassment similarly failed.
Tribunal found claimant did not do protected acts within meaning of s.27 EqA. Comments to OH and managers too oblique to constitute allegations of unlawful discrimination. Applying Kokomane guidance, disclosures would not be understood as allegations of breach of Equality Act.
Tribunal found alleged disclosures failed public interest test under s.43B ERA. Disclosures related to claimant's personal circumstances and dispute with employer, not made in reasonable belief they were in public interest. Disclosures about own treatment do not engage wider public concern.
Withdrawn by claimant
Withdrawn by claimant
Facts
Claimant employed on fixed term contract as senior project manager in NHS elective recovery team. During employment suffered domestic abuse by ex-partner who prevented access to children. Claimant alleged managers assumed he was perpetrator not victim because he is male. Fixed term contract expired 31 March 2023. Claimant claims he was dismissed and not supported because of sex, and subjected to detriments after making protected disclosures about his treatment as male domestic abuse victim.
Decision
Tribunal dismissed all claims. Key allegation that manager told claimant he was 'banned from seeing children' not made as alleged - comment was sympathetic and misunderstood. No evidence of sex discrimination. Claimant supported extensively including counselling, occupational health, flexible working. Alleged protected disclosures failed public interest test - related to claimant's personal circumstances not wider public concern. Contract ended due to lack of funding.
Practical note
Disclosures about an employee's own personal treatment, even when framed as raising broader issues about treatment of domestic abuse victims, will not meet the public interest test for whistleblowing protection if they relate solely to the individual's dispute with their employer.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2409183/2023
- Decision date
- 3 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 7
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Project Manager
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No