Miss K Wilson v Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust: 2405366/2018
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 December 2022 |
| Date | 23 December 2022 |
| Published date | 09 January 2023 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 2405366/2018 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
RESERVED JUDGMENT
Case No. 2405366/2018
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Miss K Wilson
Respondent:
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
Heard at:
Manchester (by CVP)
On: 12-16 April 2021
19-21 April 2021
10 and 11 June 2021
(in Chambers)
2, 5, 6 and 7 July 2021
10 and 11 August 2021
Before:
Employment Judge Warren
Mr J Ostrowski
Mr P Stowe
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Mr A Sugarman of Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
It is the unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1. The claims of detrimental treatment contrary to Section 47B of the
Employment Rights Act 1996 are without merit and are dismissed.
2. The claims of harassment relating to sexual orientation under Section 27 of
the Equality Act 2010 are without merit and are dismissed.
3. The claims of harassment related to the claimant’s race under Section 27 of
the Equality Act 2010 are without merit and are dismissed.
4. The claims of disability discrimination both for failing to make reasonable
adjustments contrary to Section 20/21 of the Equality Act 2010, direct
discrimination (Section 13 of the Equality Act), discrimination because of
something arising on consequence of disability (Section 57 of the Equality
RESERVED JUDGMENT
Case No. 2405366/2018
2
Act) and harassment related to disability (section 27 of the Equality Act) are
without merit and are dismissed.
REASONS
Introduction
1. This case has a vast array of facts covering three separate venues from which
the claimant worked over a period of years. We heard evidence from 12 respondent
witnesses, the claimant herself and two witnesses in support of the claimant. The
case had been case managed over and again, but even then, and with 3,500 pages
of bundle to absorb, the claimant on the first day of the hearing produced an
additional bundle of documents, unpaginated and without any form of index. She
had not agreed the timetable, the chronology, the cast list or the order of the case
until we discussed it on the first morning.
2. Employment Judge Warren apologises for the delay in the parties receiving
this judgement. She has been unwell.
3. Previous Judges (EJ Slater and EJ Howard) had done their very best to
provide a List of Issues. The claimant however blamed them for not including
indirect discrimination( disability) in the List of Issues. When asked why she had not
raised this before she indicated that the Judges had prepared the List of Issues and
it was their fault.
4. There was a written application for anonymity under rule 50 , Tribunal Rules
of Procedure which was refused with verbal reasons, on the grounds that it did not
meet the criteria for rule 50.
5. It took the Tribunal the first two days to read into the case, and to deal with
the preliminary matters.
6. We heard from the claimant first and made a number of adjustments for her.
The respondent accepted that the claimant was disabled at the material time by
reason of anxiety and depression. The claimant further asserted that she was
disabled by reason of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”). The respondent
denied that the claimant had PTSD.
List of Issues
7. The List of Issues can be found attached at Annex A of the last set of case
management orders made. (Page 77 to 84 of the bundle).
1. Protected Disclosures
1.1. Did the claimant make one or more qualifying disclosures as defined in
Section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996? The Tribunal will decide:
1.1.1. What did the claimant say or write? When? To whom? The
claimant says she made disclosures on these occasions:
RESERVED JUDGMENT
Case No. 2405366/2018
3
PD1
Initially on 31 May 2016 and then on 15 November 2016 by email and then
face to face to Maria Graham and Karen Fishwick. It was about Camilla
Lewis’s (another health visitor) alleged poor practice. The information
tended to show that the health and safety of patients was likely to be
endangered (Section 43B(1)(d)).
PD2
In June 2016 orally in a meeting and by email to Maria Graham and Becky
Parker. The information disclosed was concern about Camilla Lewis and
the health or safety of patients was likely to be endangered – Section
43B(1)(d).
PD3
Tuesday 17 January 2017 initially by email to Roy Nanjt and Christina
Akuazoku. The information disclosed was concerns about Teresa Solano-
Olivares not preparing a care plan for a patient with mental health issues
and the information tended to show that the health or safety of patients was
likely to be endangered. Section 43B(1)(d).
PD4
In June 2017 by email/letter to the Chief Executive of the Trust with
concerns about Camilla Lewis and Teresa Solano-Olivares (as above) and
behaviours in the team, bullying of the claimant due to raising concerns;
isolation of the claimant; toxic environment e.g. colleagues telling patients to
“fuck off and die”, Paula McAdam saying “I don’t do weeping willows” in
relation to the claimant’s mental health ; Helen Whelan saying “We get all
the nutcases in this team” and the claimant being pushed into a wall. The
health or safety of patients was likely to be endangered – Section 43B(1)(d);
persons failing to comply with a legal obligations – Section 43B(1)(b); and in
relation to pushing the claimant against a wall, commission of a criminal
offence – Section 43B(1)(a).
PD5
In December 2017 by emails and orally to Louise Barrett about staff
consuming rum cake during working hours whereby the health or safety of
patients was likely to be endangered – Section 43B(1)(d).
PD6
December 2017 emails and orally to Louise Barrett about Rachel Thomas
(health visitor) going on holiday when on sick leave. The health and safety
of patients was likely to be endangered – Section 43B(1)(d); failure to
comply with a legal obligation – Section 43B(1)(b).
PD7
To continue reading
Request your trial