Claimant v NHS Lanarkshire

The claimant withdrew this complaint at the hearing during the submissions stage.

The tribunal found the claimant is a white Scottish Rastafarian who manifests his belief through dreadlocks. However, the tribunal found no evidence that the respondent's enforcement of the uniform policy (requiring hair to be tied up) was because of the claimant's religion. The policy was applied consistently for health and safety and infection control reasons. The respondent did not know of the claimant's religion until 12 May 2022 and applied the policy uniformly to all staff.

The tribunal found no evidence of less favourable treatment because of the claimant's race. All comparators (hypothetical and actual) with similar hair would have been treated identically. The tribunal found no causal link between the claimant's race and the respondent's actions regarding the uniform policy.

The tribunal examined nine specific incidents alleged by the claimant. In each case, the tribunal found either that the conduct did not occur as alleged, or that it was not related to race or religion, or that it did not have the proscribed effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The tribunal found all discussions were professional and reasonable in the circumstances.

As with race harassment, the tribunal found that none of the alleged incidents constituted harassment related to religion. Staff discussions about the uniform policy were professional and aimed at finding a solution to enable the claimant to continue working in a patient-facing role. The tribunal found the respondent's actions were proportionate and aimed at protecting health and safety.

The tribunal identified several protected acts by the claimant (notably on 2 May 2022 and 12 May 2022 when he asserted he was protected by the Equality Act). However, examining 26 alleged detriments, the tribunal found none were because of the protected acts. Each act was either not established in evidence, not a detriment, or was done for legitimate reasons unconnected to the claimant having made protected disclosures. For example, suspension was for health and safety reasons, not because of complaints.

The tribunal found on balance that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act. While he had mental health diagnoses (major depressive disorder, PTSD), the tribunal was not satisfied on the evidence that these had lasted 12 months or had a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities at the material time. The claimant's consulting psychiatrist had expressed doubt about the diagnoses. Further, the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have known of any disability.

The tribunal found the alleged PCP (not engaging in shared care arrangements with private mental health providers) was not established as a provision, criterion or practice. It was a one-off situation unique to the claimant. Even if it were a PCP, there was no evidence of group disadvantage, and the claimant's own psychiatrist recommended NHS care rather than shared care. The respondent also lacked knowledge of substantial disadvantage.

The respondent conceded it failed to provide the claimant with written itemised pay statements on or before the date of payment in accordance with section 8(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for the period April 2022 to December 2023. A remedy hearing will be fixed if needed.