Claimant v Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
All complaints in the first ET1 (claim 3325723/2017) occurred between May and September 2016. The claim was presented on 1 August 2017, well outside the three-month time limit. The tribunal found the claims had no merit and it was not just and equitable to extend time for presentation.
Harassment complaints related to incidents in mid-2016. Presented out of time in August 2017. Tribunal found no evidence of harassment related to race and it was not just and equitable to extend time.
Second claim (3334336/2018) concerned incident on 3 April 2018 where security officers used force to remove claimant from hospital premises. Tribunal viewed bodycam footage and found force used was proportionate and necessary due to claimant's behaviour, not related to his race.
Claimant alleged harassment in being banned from hospital premises following 3 April 2018 incident. Tribunal found ban was justified by claimant's behaviour and any comparator in same circumstances would have been treated identically.
Claimant alleged victimisation in connection with various workplace incidents. Tribunal found no evidence that treatment was because claimant had made protected disclosures or allegations of discrimination.
Claimant alleged he was owed holiday pay for untaken leave. Tribunal found respondent's payroll records showed no outstanding accrued leave and claimant had been paid for all leave entitlement on termination.
Facts
The claimant, a Zimbabwean national, was employed by the respondent NHS Trust as a medical secretary from May 2016 to April 2017. He brought two claims: the first alleged race discrimination and harassment arising from multiple workplace incidents between June and September 2016; the second alleged race discrimination when security staff used force to remove him from hospital premises in April 2018 after his employment ended. The claimant refused to participate after his postponement application was refused, citing ill health and objecting to the Employment Judge on grounds of shared nationality and a previous case in 2011.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The first claim was presented out of time (incidents in mid-2016, claim filed August 2017) and it was not just and equitable to extend time. On merits, the tribunal found the claimant's account of events unreliable when compared to witness evidence and bodycam footage. The second claim failed because the tribunal found the force used by security staff was proportionate to the claimant's behaviour and not related to his race. The claimant's refusal to participate and demonstrably inaccurate accounts undermined his credibility.
Practical note
A claimant who refuses to participate in proceedings and whose account of key events is directly contradicted by objective evidence such as bodycam footage will be found to be an unreliable witness, fatally undermining discrimination claims that depend on credibility.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3325723/2017
- Decision date
- 16 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- —
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Medical Secretary
- Service
- 10 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No