Cases1805529/2023

Claimant v Waterloo Manor Limited

13 June 2025Before Employment Judge Milleron papers

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(race)failed

The tribunal found that the reason for actions taken by the respondent (including the NMC referral) was not because of race. The tribunal preferred management evidence over contemporaneous statements from Black staff, finding the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had kicked a patient based on video evidence.

Victimisationfailed

The tribunal found that the NMC referral was made because Ms Carroll believed she had an obligation to make the referral, not because the claimant had brought tribunal proceedings for race discrimination. The reason for the referral was in no sense whatsoever because the claimant brought a claim.

Facts

The claimant, a healthcare worker with sight in only one eye, was dismissed following an incident where the employer believed he kicked a patient during a restraint. The claimant raised a grievance and filed a claim for race discrimination. The employer subsequently referred the claimant to the NMC following a police 'no further action' outcome and after receiving notice of tribunal proceedings. The claimant argued the referral was victimisation.

Decision

The tribunal refused the claimant's reconsideration application. The tribunal had found that the NMC referral was made because the employer believed there was an obligation to refer, not because of the race discrimination claim. The tribunal also rejected arguments about preferring retrospective management evidence, new evidence about visual impairment, and procedural unfairness, finding no reasonable prospect of varying the original judgment.

Practical note

Reconsideration applications must demonstrate that new evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence at the original hearing and would probably have an important influence on the result; reconsideration is not a rehearing or opportunity to re-argue the case.

Legal authorities cited

Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 CAOutasight VB Limited v Brown UKEAT/0253/14/LABHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 931Brent v FullerMadarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] ICR 867

Statutes

EqA 2010

Case details

Case number
1805529/2023
Decision date
13 June 2025
Hearing type
reconsideration
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes

Claimant representation

Represented
No