Claimant v The Royal College of Ophthalmologists

Claim dismissed as tribunal found claimant was not an employee of the respondent within the meaning of s230 ERA 1996. She was a volunteer for the Royal College whilst remaining employed by London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust throughout. The EDI role was voluntary, unpaid, with no contract, no legal obligation to fulfil the role or give notice, and no salary, pension or employee benefits.

Application to amend to include s103A ERA claim dismissed. The claim requires employee status under s103A ERA. The tribunal found the claimant was a volunteer not an employee, and therefore the amendment would have no reasonable prospect of success.

Claim dismissed as tribunal found claimant was not an employee of the respondent within the meaning of s83 EqA 2010, nor did she work under a contract personally to do work. She was a volunteer with no contractual relationship capable of conferring jurisdiction under s39 EqA.

Application to amend to include additional harassment allegations dismissed. Harassment claims under s39 EqA require employee status or a contract personally to do work. The tribunal found neither existed.

Application to amend to include indirect race discrimination dismissed. Such claims require employee status or a contract personally to do work under s39 EqA. The tribunal found the claimant was a volunteer with no such status or contract.

Victimisation claim dismissed as tribunal found claimant was not an employee of the respondent within the meaning of s83 EqA 2010, nor did she work under a contract personally to do work, so s39 EqA did not apply.

Breach of contract claim dismissed as tribunal found no contract of any kind existed between the claimant and respondent. The EDI role was voluntary, unpaid, with no contractual obligations on either side.

Application to amend to include constructive dismissal dismissed. Constructive dismissal under s95(1) ERA requires employee status. The tribunal found the claimant was a volunteer not an employee.

The claimant's application to amend to include a public interest disclosure claim was limited to automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA (not detriment under s47B ERA). As this requires employee status and the tribunal found she was a volunteer, the amendment was dismissed.