Claimant v Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim brought under sections 20-21 EqA 2010 alleging respondent failed to comply with adjustments set out in occupational health reports from August 2021 onwards. Not yet determined; preliminary hearing only addressed amendment and procedural applications.
New claim added by amendment under section 13 EqA 2010. The tribunal noted this claim may have no reasonable prospects of success and will be considered at a future preliminary hearing for possible strike out/deposit order.
New claim added by amendment under section 26 EqA 2010, including allegations that requests for further occupational health assessments constitute harassment. Not yet determined; preliminary hearing only.
New claim added by amendment under section 27 EqA 2010, including allegations that requests for further occupational health assessments constitute victimisation. Not yet determined; preliminary hearing only.
Protected disclosure detriment claim alleging 24 acts of detriment following alleged disclosure about patient health and safety on 29 July 2020. Claimant alleges respondent intentionally offered unsuitable roles because of the disclosure. Not yet determined; preliminary hearing only.
Facts
The claimant, a Band 2 admin assistant employed since 2011, has not physically worked since 2018 apart from brief periods. He alleges he made a protected disclosure about patient health and safety in July 2020 while on career break. He claims the respondent has failed to make reasonable adjustments regarding lighting and workplace conditions, and has intentionally offered unsuitable roles as retaliation. He remains employed on full pay but states he does not intend to return to work due to relationship breakdown.
Decision
This was a preliminary hearing addressing procedural matters. The tribunal granted the claimant's application to amend his claims to add direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims alongside existing failure to adjust and whistleblowing claims. The tribunal dismissed the claimant's applications for an unless order and to strike out the respondent's defence, finding they had no merit and the matters complained of were outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. A further preliminary hearing was ordered to consider whether claims should be struck out or subject to deposit orders due to time limit issues.
Practical note
Claimants should not misuse tribunal procedures to make unmeritorious strike out or unless order applications about matters outside the tribunal's jurisdiction, particularly regarding ongoing employment management issues rather than adjudication of legal claims.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6005963/2024
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- admin assistant
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No