Cases2411744/2023

Claimant v Wrightington Wigan and Leigh Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

30 July 2025Before Employment Judge CooksonManchesterhybrid

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(disability)failed

The tribunal accepted Dr Tuano-Donnelly's evidence that she had made the decision to withdraw the conditional job offer, that she had not known about the Claimant's disability and therefore could not have been influenced by it, and that she would have treated a non-disabled applicant who failed to provide satisfactory referees in the same way. The tribunal concluded that the Respondent had shown a non-discriminatory reason for the withdrawal — the Claimant's withdrawal of her original referees.

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

The tribunal accepted that Dr Tuano-Donnelly did not know that the Claimant considered that she would need adjustments and did not know what the Claimant had said in the occupational health questionnaire. The matters relied upon by the Claimant (the need for adjustments, psychiatric care, and medication) could not have influenced Dr Tuano-Donnelly's decision in any way because she was unaware of them.

Facts

The Claimant, a radiologist with depression, was offered a conditional senior clinical fellowship post. The offer was withdrawn after the Claimant requested that her original referees not be contacted and provided new referee details which were not followed up by the Respondent. Shortly before the withdrawal, the Claimant had completed an occupational health questionnaire disclosing her disability and need for adjustments, but this information was not seen by the decision-maker. The Respondent failed to follow NHS guidance on what to do when references are not provided.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed both claims. They found the job offer was withdrawn because the Claimant objected to her original referees being contacted, not because of her disability. The decision-maker, Dr Tuano-Donnelly, did not know about the Claimant's disability or her disclosure in the occupational health questionnaire. While the tribunal found the Respondent's conduct raised questions and required explanation, they accepted Dr Tuano-Donnelly's evidence that she would have treated a non-disabled person in the same circumstances the same way.

Practical note

Where an employer can demonstrate that the decision-maker had no knowledge of disability or related adjustments, discrimination claims will fail even if the employer's processes were flawed and occupational health had received relevant information, provided there is a credible non-discriminatory explanation for the treatment.

Legal authorities cited

Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 931Pnaiser v NHS England [2016] IRLR 170Laing v Manchester City Council [2006] IRLRBahl v The Law Society [2003] IRLR 640Griffiths-Henry v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd 2006 IRLR 865Owen and Briggs v James 1982 ICR 618, CAO'Neill v Governors of St Thomas More Roman Catholic Voluntarily Aided Upper SchoolNagarajan v London Regional Transport [2000] 1 AC 501Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337Boyle v SCA Packaging Limited 2009 ICR 1056, HLHammersmith and Fulham LBC v Farnsworth 2000 IRLR 691Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust [2005] EWCA Civ 06Q v L [2019] EAT 0209/18BMA v Chaudhary (No 2) 2007 IRLR 800Grosset v City of York Council

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.13Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1 para 2.2Equality Act 2010 s.136Equality Act 2010 s.15

Case details

Case number
2411744/2023
Decision date
30 July 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Senior Clinical Fellow in Musculoskeletal Radiology

Claimant representation

Represented
No