Miss J Panahian-Jand v Barts Health NHS Trust and Barts Health Staff Bank: 3202418/2019
| Judgment Date | 10 February 2021 |
| Published date | 18 February 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Public Interest Disclosure |
Case Number: 3202418/2019 V
1
RM
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Miss J Panahian-Jand
Respondents: (1) Barts Health NHS Trust
(2) Barts Health Staff Bank
Heard at: East London Hearing Centre (by Cloud Video Platform)
On: 27, 28, 29 January 2021 and (in chambers) 5 February 2021
Before: Employment Judge Moor
Members: Mr L Purewal
Mr S Woodhouse
Representation
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Mr S Sudra, counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
It is the unanimous judgment of the Tribunal that:
1. The First Respondent unlawfully victimised the Claimant contrary to
section 27 and section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 by:
1.1. restricting her work from 30 May 2019; and
1.2. delaying communicating to her the outcome of the investigation
into her conduct; and
1.3. Miss Hook twice blocking her path on 3 June 2019.
2. The First Respondent subjected the Claimant to the detriments set out in
paragraph 1 because she had made protected disclosures, contrary to
section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
3. Pursuant to section 124 of the Equality Act 2010, the Tribunal
recommends that, no later than 4 weeks after this Judgment is sent to
the parties, the restriction on the Claimant working at Acorn Ward and at
Whipps Cross Hospital be removed.
4. The First Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant £26,083.19.
Case Number: 3202418/2019 V
2
5. By consent, the claim is dismissed against the Second Respondent
because it is not a legal entity.
REASONS
1. This hearing was held remotely by video (V fully), which was consented to by
the parties. A hearing in person was not practicable due to the restrictions on
social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic. We had available to us an
agreed bundle, written witness statements, a chronology and cast list, a
skeleton argument from the Claimant and written closing statements. Numbers
in brackets in this judgment are to the Agreed Hearing Bundle.
2. The Claimant was a paediatric bank nurse with the First Respondent (‘the
Trust’). She claims that she was subject to detriments because she had made
allegations of discrimination. She puts these claims, in the alternative, as
‘whistleblowing’ claims.
3. We confirmed we would deal with liability and remedy issues at this hearing.
4. Given the larger number of Trust witnesses than expected, we set a rough
timetable aiming to hear all the evidence and submissions in the 3-day listing.
We thank both the Claimant and Mr Sudra for meeting this timetable and for
the courteous, calm and structured way in which they conducted their cases.
Issues
5. At the outset of the hearing we ensured we understood the issues (61). We
corrected the list of issues to make it consistent with the legal principles:
5.1. the acts/omissions complained about could be detriments and
the restriction could be breaches of 39(3) of the Equality Act
2010 (‘EA’); and
5.2. the Claimant explained, in her public interest disclosure claim,
that she was relying on a belief that she was disclosing
information that tended to show a breach of the legal obligation
of the Public Sector Equality Duty and that she reasonably
believed the disclosures were in the public interest because of
the nature of that duty and the fact that she had nothing to gain
personally from the complaints.
6. Mr Sudra confirmed that the Trust did not allege that the Claimant made her
discrimination allegations/disclosures in bad faith.
7. The Trust also accepted that the Claimant was its ‘worker’ for the purposes of
the Employment Rights Act 1998 (‘ERA’) and its ‘employee’ under the wider
definition of employee in the EA.
8. The main complaint is of ‘suspension’: it was agreed that this referred to the
restriction that the Trust admits it applied to the Claimant from 30 May 2019 by
directing its Bank Partners not to offer the Claimant bank shifts on Acorn Ward
Case Number: 3202418/2019 V
3
(the Claimant alleges it was for Whipps Cross Hospital). This restriction was
unpaid.
List of Issues
Victimisation
9. Did the Claimant make/do the following acts:
9.1. Raise a complaint of discrimination to Heather Roberts, Ward
Manager, on 11 May 2019 (in respect of patient allocation and
workload between members of staff on Acorn Ward).
9.2. Raise a complaint of discrimination to Heather Roberts, Ward
Manager, on 11 May 2019 (in respect of bullying and harassment
of two junior members of staff on the ward).
9.3. Raise a complaint of discrimination to Heather Roberts, Ward
Manager, on 14 May 2019.
9.4. Raise a complaint of discrimination to Heather Roberts, Ward
Manager, on 27 May 2019: and
9.5. Make a written complaint in June 2019 (which post-dates the
alleged detrimental treatment).
10. Did these or any of them constitute a protected act for the purposes of s.27(2)
EA?
11. Was the Claimant subjected to the following treatment:
11.1. ‘Suspending’ her from her duties on 30 May 2019.
11.2. Treating her differently from other bank members of staff in that:
(a) The Claimant was approached aggressively by Jamie Hook
in the back of the hospital car park on 3 June 2019 and the Trust
did not investigate this despite the Claimant complaining about it
in her call to HR on 10 June 2019, in her letter to HR on 20 June
2019 and during her investigatory interview with Ms Cooper-
James on 16 July 2019; and (b) Ms Elliott and Miss Hook, two
members of staff cited within the original complaint, were neither
restricted nor suspended from duty despite the Claimant making
allegations against them of race discrimination.
11.3. Causing ‘damage to the Claimant’s reputation’ in her field in
relation to senior staff (Mrs H Roberts (Ward Manager), Ms L
Barker (Ward Sister), Ms L Davis (Ward Sister) and Ms R Jones
(Ward Sister)) making ‘slanderous and defaming comments that
the Claimant was banned from various hospitals and that she
had been removed from post following a mental breakdown after
the death of her child’.
11.4. Denying the Claimant the opportunity to be informed of the
allegations against her as part of the June 2019 investigation
conducted by Mrs D Kara.
To continue reading
Request your trial