Claimant v University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust

The tribunal found no evidence from which they could conclude that the claimant was treated less favourably because he was Black African. The tribunal accepted the respondent's explanations for the delay in the grievance, the decision that he was not disabled, and the adverse findings. These reasons were found to be entirely unconnected to race. The delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the disability decision was based on Ms Gericke's assessment of medical evidence, and the adverse findings were made because she thought it necessary to properly consider the grievance.

The tribunal found no evidence that a non-disabled person would have been treated differently. A non-disabled person's grievance would not have been dealt with more quickly, would not have had their alleged disability acknowledged, would not have avoided the adverse findings, and would not have been removed from the red zone before the claimant was. The tribunal accepted Ms Gericke's explanations for her actions, which were unrelated to disability.

The tribunal found that the delay to the grievance, the failure to acknowledge disability, the adverse findings, and the requirement to work in the red zone were not caused by the things arising from the claimant's disability (abnormal heart rhythm causing tiredness, palpitations, faint feeling and breathlessness). The delay was due to COVID-19, Ms Gericke's disability decision was because she thought the condition was sufficiently managed, the adverse findings were to properly consider the grievance, and the red zone work was due to standard rostering processes.

Although the four detriments constituted unwanted conduct, the tribunal found they did not relate to the claimant's race. The tribunal accepted Ms Gericke's explanations that the conduct was motivated by legitimate operational and investigatory reasons unrelated to the claimant's protected characteristics.

Although the four detriments constituted unwanted conduct, the tribunal found they did not relate to the claimant's disability. The tribunal accepted Ms Gericke's explanations that the conduct was motivated by legitimate operational and investigatory reasons unrelated to the claimant's protected characteristics.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant did protected acts by raising grievances on 17 January 2020 and 10 June 2020. However, the tribunal found that the detriments were not because the claimant had done protected acts. The delay was due to COVID-19, the disability decision was based on Ms Gericke's assessment, the adverse findings were to properly address the grievance, and the red zone work was due to standard rostering with no evidence the roster manager knew of the grievances.

The tribunal found that the claimant did not make protected disclosures because he did not have a belief that the disclosures were in the public interest at the time he made them. The grievance of 17 January 2020 was entirely about the claimant's personal position with nothing suggesting wider considerations. The 10 June 2020 grievance, while mentioning the trust's failure to identify at-risk persons, was primarily about advancing the claimant's personal position, and the claimant gave no evidence of considering the public interest. Even if the disclosures were protected, the detriments were not caused by the grievances but by COVID-19 pandemic effects, Ms Gericke's assessments, and standard rostering.