Claimant v Haringey GP Group Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract. The invitation to an investigation meeting was proper and in accordance with policy. The respondent had reasonable and proper cause. The claimant was not constructively dismissed under s.95(1)(c) ERA.
Tribunal found no facts from which it could conclude that treatment was because of the claimant's Turkish/Kurdish ethnicity. Many allegations failed on facts (e.g. mocking of accent did not occur). Others failed because there was no less favourable treatment or no causal link to race. Some allegations were struck out as out of time.
Three specific harassment allegations (missing coat 2019, magpie comment, mocking accent) all failed. The coat and magpie incidents were out of time. The accent mocking allegations failed on facts — tribunal found the clinical leads did not mock the claimant's accent. Where conduct occurred, it was not related to race and did not have the proscribed purpose or effect.
Although the tribunal found the claimant was disabled (mental impairment from May 2021), the s.15 discrimination arising from disability claims failed. The respondent did consider the claimant's wellbeing on return to work. The invitation to an investigation meeting was not motivated by the claimant's sickness absence. There was no unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability.
Multiple allegations of direct race discrimination all failed on merits or time limits. Tribunal found no less favourable treatment compared to actual or hypothetical comparators. Differences in career progression were due to differences in circumstances (e.g. claimant did not apply for roles others applied for). No facts supported inference of race discrimination.
The claimant was not dismissed. He resigned on 21 August 2023 after being invited to an investigation meeting. The tribunal found this did not amount to constructive dismissal because the respondent had reasonable and proper cause to call the meeting, and the invitation was not a fundamental breach of contract.
Facts
The claimant, of Turkish/Kurdish ethnicity, was employed from April 2020 to August 2023, progressing from bilingual care navigator to integrated service manager in July 2022 at £35,000 per annum. He alleged he was treated less favourably than white colleagues in terms of promotion, training, and support, and that his accent was mocked. On 21 August 2023, after returning from sickness absence for stress/anxiety, he was invited to an investigation meeting about alleged conduct during his absence. He resigned the same day, alleging constructive dismissal.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The claimant was found to be disabled due to mental impairment from May 2021, but the disability discrimination claims failed on facts. The race discrimination and harassment claims failed because the tribunal found either that the alleged conduct did not occur, or there were no facts from which to infer race was a factor. Many allegations were out of time. The constructive dismissal claim failed because the respondent had reasonable cause to invite the claimant to an investigation meeting and this was not a fundamental breach.
Practical note
A single-day delay in presenting a claim (here one day after the time limit expired) may not be forgiven where claims fail on merits and late disclosure prejudices the respondent; tribunals will rigorously test allegations of mocking or discriminatory comments, especially where no contemporaneous complaint was made and witnesses deny the conduct.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3300011/2024
- Decision date
- 14 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Integrated Service Manager (previously Senior Bilingual Care Navigator)
- Salary band
- £30,000–£40,000
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No