Claimant v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
All allegations of direct race discrimination were struck out except the 'you people' comment allegation which was subject to a deposit order. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success as the claimant provided no discernible basis to understand how the conduct complained of related to race and no basis on which the burden of proof might be discharged.
All allegations of direct age discrimination were struck out. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success as there was no discernible basis at all on the allegations as pleaded to understand how the conduct complained of related to age in any way, and no basis set out on which the burden of proof might be discharged.
All harassment related to race allegations were struck out except the 'you people' comment allegation which was subject to a deposit order. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success as the particulars did not set out any link to race and provided no basis to conclude the reason for the alleged conduct was race.
All harassment related to age allegations were struck out. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success as there was no discernible basis at all on the allegations as pleaded to understand how the conduct complained of related to age, and the claimant could not show it would be reasonable for the alleged conduct to have the required effect.
The victimisation claim was struck out because the detriments alleged occurred before the protected acts relied upon (22 May 2023 email). The 11 May 2023 communication at its highest complained of bullying without any connection to protected characteristics and could not be construed as a protected act. There was no reasonable prospect of success.
The protected disclosure claim was struck out because the detriments alleged occurred before the qualifying protected disclosure on 22 May 2023. The oral communications on 21 March 2023 and 10 May 2023 could not conceivably be construed as qualifying protected disclosures as they related solely to the claimant's own interactions and could not be considered as raising matters in the public interest. No reasonable prospect of success.
Part-time worker less favourable treatment claim struck out because the claimant was a bank/casual worker and could not fall within scope of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, which apply to workers who were previously full-time. No reasonable prospect of success.
Facts
The claimant, a 60-61 year old woman of Indian origin, worked as a bank ward administrator for the NHS Trust on two brief assignments in March and May 2023. She alleged discriminatory treatment by managers including refusing to train her, accusing her of lying on her CV, making a comment about 'you people' and DBS checks, and terminating her assignment. She raised internal complaints in May 2023 which were largely not upheld following investigation completed in February 2024.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the vast majority of the claimant's claims on the basis they had no reasonable prospect of success. The claims failed because the particulars provided no discernible link between the alleged treatment and race or age, the alleged protected acts and disclosures occurred after the detriments complained of, and the claimant was a casual bank worker not covered by part-time worker regulations. Only one allegation about a 'you people' comment survived subject to deposit orders of £50.
Practical note
Claimants must plead a factual and legal basis linking alleged treatment to protected characteristics; allegations that detriments occurred before protected acts or disclosures cannot succeed; and bank/casual workers do not have part-time worker status under the 2000 Regulations.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2214008/2023
- Decision date
- 11 March 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Ward Administrator
- Service
- 2 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No