Claimant v St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant suffered less favourable treatment because of his race (British Pakistani). The respondent followed proper procedures in response to serious allegations from a third-party colleague, and the claimant failed to shift the burden of proof.

The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant suffered less favourable treatment because of his sex. The respondent's actions were appropriate responses to serious allegations and were not linked to the claimant's sex in any way.

The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant suffered less favourable treatment because of his association with his nephew who had Lafora disease. The respondent's actions were in response to workplace conduct allegations and had nothing to do with his nephew's disability.

The tribunal found that the respondent's conduct did not amount to unwanted conduct related to race, and did not have the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The respondent's behaviour was reasonable and justified.

The tribunal found that the respondent's conduct did not amount to unwanted conduct related to sex, and did not have the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The respondent's behaviour was reasonable and justified.

The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to determine a standalone complaint under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Employment tribunals do not have jurisdiction over such claims. The tribunal also found no interference with Article 8 rights as the incident occurred in a professional workplace context with no expectation of privacy.