Dr A Gumma v North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust and Ramsay Healthcare UK: 3334546/2018 and others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 June 2021 |
| Citation | 3334546/2018 and others |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 18 June 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Sex Discrimination |
Case Numbers: 3334546/2018; 3310912/2019; 3321318/2019 (V)
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Dr A Gumma
v
(1) North West Anglia NHS
Foundation Trust;
(2) Ramsay Healthcare UK
Heard at: Norwich (part in person 2020)
(part CVP 2021)
On:
Reading Days: 9, 10 and 11 November 2020
Hearing Days: 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 27 November 2020
Refreshing Reading Days: 20 and 21 January 2021
Hearing Days: 22, 25, 26 and 27 January 2021
Members Discussion Days: 28, 29 January 2021
1, 2 and 3 February 2021
Before: Employment Judge Postle
Members: Mrs M Prettyman and Mr A Chinn-Shaw
Appearances
For the Claimant: Mr S Cheetham, QC
For the First Respondent: Miss Motragi, Counsel
For the Second Respondent: Miss Patterson, Counsel
COVID-19 Statement on behalf of Sir Keith Lindblom, Senior President of Tribunals
This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has not been objected to by the parties.
The form of remote hearing was by Cloud Video Platform (V). A face to face hearing was not held
because it was not practicable during the current pandemic and all issues could be determined in
a remote hearing on the papers.
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The Claimant’s claims against the First and Second Respondents under
the Equality Act 2010 (as set out) are not well founded, are out of time and
the Tribunal does not exercise its discretion to extend time.
2. The Claimant’s claims against the First and Second Respondents that she
was unfairly dismissed, suffered detriments for making protected
Case Numbers: 3334546/2018; 3310912/2019; 3321318/2019 (V)
2
disclosures, or automatically unfairly dismissed, are not well founded and
in part out of time (as set out).
REASONS
1. The Claimant brings claims to the Tribunal under the Employment Rights
Act 1996 for ordinary unfair dismissal; claims also under the Employment
Rights Act 1996 for automatic unfair dismissal, Section 103A; detriments
for having made protected disclosures contrary to Section 47B, also of the
Employment Rights Act 1996. There are, in addition, claims under the
Equality Act 2010 for the protective characteristic of sex, particularly direct
sex discrimination pursuant to Section 13; and victimisation under Section
27 of the Equality Act 2010.
2. The Tribunal will also have to consider jurisdictional issues in relation to
the claims. Particularly time issues given the dates of Acas Early
Conciliation and the dates each claim was filed. In the case of claims
under the Employment Rights Act 1996, whether is was reasonably
practicable to have issued within the 3 month period, plus any additional
time for Early Conciliation; and under the Equality Act 2010 whether it
would be just and equitable to extend time.
3. The detail of the issues has been set out in a document agreed between
the parties’ Counsel.
AGREED LISTS OF ISSUES – First Respondent
In the case of the First Respondent’s issues, these are as follows:
(2) PRELIMINARY ISSUES – JURISDICTION
2.1 Does the Employment Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear each of the claims
set out in paragraphs 4.7, 5.1 and 6.3 below having to: [the first claim
against the First Respondent 3310912/2019]
2.1.1 the date that the ET1 Claim Form was presented, namely 2 March
2019;
2.1.2 the date Acas received the Early Conciliation Notification, namely 2
January 2019; and
2.1.3 the date the Early Conciliation period ended, namely 2 February
2019?
2.1.4 whether any acts or omissions before 3 October 2018 are part of a
continuing act or course of conduct?
2.1.5 if any claims are out of time, is it just and equitable to extend time?
2.2 In respect of the second claim against the First Respondent
[3321318/2019], the Claimant’s notification to Acas was 29 June 2019.
Case Numbers: 3334546/2018; 3310912/2019; 3321318/2019 (V)
3
The Early Conciliation ended on 16 July 2019. The claim was presented
to the Employment Tribunal on 16 August 2019. Given the claim was
presented within a month of the end of conciliation, any acts or omissions
prior to 30 March 2019 are out of time unless part of a series of continuing
acts.
(3) ORDINARY UNFAIR DISMISSAL
3.1 Was the Claimant dismissed for a potentially fair reason within the
meaning of Section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”)?
The Respondent relies upon the potentially fair reason of conduct.
3.2 If the Claimant was dismissed for a reason relating to the Claimant’s
conduct, in the circumstances did the Respondent act reasonably or
unreasonably in treating conduct as a sufficient reason for dismissing the
Claimant in accordance with Section 98(4) of the ERA? In particular:
3.2.1 Did the Respondent believe the Claimant to be guilty of
misconduct?
3.2.2 Did the Respondent have reasonable grounds for believing that the
Claimant was guilty of that misconduct? and
3.2.3 At the time the Respondent held that belief, had it carried out as
much investigation as was reasonable in all of the circumstances of
the case?
3.3 In all the circumstances was the decision within the range of reasonable
responses of a reasonable employer?
3.4 If there were any defects in the procedure leading to the Claimant’s
dismissal, which is denied by the Respondent, were any defects remedied
by the appeal procedure that was subsequently followed?
3.5 If the Claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of procedural grounds,
which is denied by the Respondent, would the Claimant still have been
dismissed on the grounds of conduct had a fair procedure been followed?
3.6 The Claimant alleges that the dismissal was unfair by reason that the
Respondent did not sufficiently take into account:
3.6.1 the Claimant’s repeated complaint that she had been harassed and
discriminated against in an attempt to drive her out of private
practice;
3.6.2 the Respondent’s alleged failure to rectify or investigate the
allegedly unfair SI investigation which had targeted the Claimant
and subjected her to unfair criticism;
3.6.3 the Respondent’s alleged failure to investigate the alleged
accessing and misuse of information by colleagues of the Claimant;
To continue reading
Request your trial