Cases4102567/2024

Claimant v NHS Lothian

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(race)not determined

Multiple complaints of direct race discrimination. Claim 7 (required to meet with Deputy CEO) struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success because there was incontrovertible documentary evidence that claimant was not required to meet and had the opportunity to postpone. Claims 2, 9, 10 have deposit orders as having little reasonable prospects.

Harassment(race)not determined

Harassment complaints related to race. Tribunal found these claims were stateable and allowed them to proceed to final hearing, though noted difficulties in establishing basis of inference in some instances.

Victimisationnot determined

Victimisation claims based on protected act of lodging grievance alleging race discrimination on 27 July 2023. Claims 7 struck out, claims 9 and 10 subject to deposit orders as having little reasonable prospects of success due to incontrovertible documentary evidence contradicting claimant's version of events.

Constructive Dismissalnot determined

Constructive dismissal claim relies upon the assertions of discrimination and is affected by the same considerations as the discrimination claims. Claimant resigned on 4 August 2023, reconsidered pending investigation, then confirmed resignation on 1 September 2023 because perpetrator JusB was not removed from the team.

Facts

Claimant, a black Ghanaian Mental Health Nurse and the only BAME nurse in her Rapid Response Team, brought complaints of race discrimination, harassment, victimisation and constructive dismissal. She lodged a grievance on 27 July 2023 alleging bullying and race discrimination by colleagues including her supervisor JusB. She resigned on 4 August 2023, reconsidered pending investigation, then confirmed resignation on 1 September 2023 because JusB was not removed from the team during the investigation. Her grievance investigation found no evidence of race discrimination but upheld two allegations of bullying by JusB. This was a preliminary hearing on respondent's application to strike out or order deposits on the basis the claims had little or no reasonable prospects of success.

Decision

The tribunal struck out one claim (complaint 7 - required to meet with Deputy CEO) as having no reasonable prospects of success because there was incontrovertible documentary evidence that the claimant was not required to meet and had the opportunity to postpone. The tribunal ordered deposits of £30 each (total £150) in respect of five complaints (direct discrimination complaints 2, 9, 10 and victimisation complaints 9, 10) as having little reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal refused to strike out or order deposits in respect of the remaining complaints, finding them stateable albeit with difficulties in establishing basis of inference.

Practical note

At strike-out hearings in discrimination cases, tribunals must distinguish between claims that have no reasonable prospects (where facts are totally inconsistent with undisputed documentation) and those with little reasonable prospects (where claimant has articulated a stateable claim but faces evidential difficulties in proving the discriminatory basis).

Legal authorities cited

Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union [2001] ICR 391Bolch v Chipman [2004] IRLR 140Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] ICR 1126Tayside Public Transport v Reilly [2012] Scot CS CSIH 46Mechkarov v Citibank NA UKEAT/0041/16/DMAhir v British Airways [2017] EWCA Civ 1392Croke v Leeds City Council UKEAT/0512/07Wright v Nipponkoa Insurance UKEAT/0113/14Hemdan v Ishmail [2017] IRLR 228Van Rensburg v Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames UKEAT/0095/07

Statutes

Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure Rule 37(1)Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure Rule 39(1)Equality Act 2010 s.13Equality Act 2010 s.26Equality Act 2010 s.27Employment Rights Act 1996 s.95(c)

Case details

Case number
4102567/2024
Decision date
12 May 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Mental Health Nurse
Service
7 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No