Claimant v Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust

Tribunal found dismissal was for Some Other Substantial Reason (claimant refusing to return to substantive role, refusing alternative roles, refusing to accept respondent had done all reasonably possible to resolve concerns). Tribunal found dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses: respondent had carried out independent investigation, offered redeployment opportunities, attempted to negotiate SOPs, changed line manager, and exhausted all reasonable options before concluding continued employment was not sustainable.

Tribunal found claimant had not established facts from which race discrimination could be inferred in relation to any of the 11 allegations spanning November 2017 to August 2021. Where treatment occurred, tribunal was satisfied it would have happened to a white comparator in materially the same circumstances. For example, the email of 10 April 2018 was sent because line manager believed operational manager's concerns at face value due to her seniority, not because of claimant's race. The November 2017 allegation was also out of time.

Protected act was the claimant's second grievance dated 17 March 2021 alleging racist behaviour. The two alleged detriments were (1) Elizabeth Chapman's decision not to recommend full investigation following fact-find in May 2021, and (2) commissioning of investigation into continued employment in August 2021. Tribunal found Chapman's decision was based on reasonable conclusion that desired outcomes could be achieved within existing processes, and that investigation into continued employment was commissioned because funding for supernumerary role ended, claimant refused to return to substantive post, and all other avenues had been exhausted — not because of the protected act.