Ms B Marapara v Millbrook Healthcare Ltd: 1403533/2019
| Judgment Date | 16 April 2021 |
| Published date | 04 May 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Age Discrimination |
Case Number: 1403533/2019 Code V
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Claimant Respondent
Ms B Marapara AND Millbrook Healthcare Limited
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
HELD REMOTELY ON 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 April 2021
By Cloud Video Platform
EMPLOYMENT JUDGE N J Roper MEMBERS Ms B Catling
Mr P Flanagan
Representation
For the Claimant: In person
For the Respondent: Mr G Self of Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the tribunal is that the claimant’s claims are all
dismissed.
REASONS
1. In this case the claimant Ms Beatrice Marapara claim s that she was discriminated against
because of three protected characteristics, namely her age, her race, and her religion and
belief. The claim is for direct discrimination; indirect discrimination; harassment; and
victimisation. The claimant also claims that she has been unfairly constructively dismissed,
and she brings two monetary c laims. The respon dent contends that there was no
discrimination, that the claimant resigned, and that there was no dismissal, and in any
event that its actions were fair and reasonable. The respondent also disputes the monetary
claims.
2. This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has been consented to by the parties.
The form of rem ote hearing was by Cloud Video Platform. A face to face hearing was not
held because it was not practicable, and all issues could be determined in a remote
hearing. The documents to which we were referr ed are in what was originally an agreed
bundle of three sections: A of 123 pages, B of 511 pages, and C of 8 pages. The claimant
then added two supplemental bundles AP1 of 207 pa ges and A P 2 in two sections of 39
and 73 pages, the contents of which we have recorded. The order made is described at
the end of these reasons.
3. We have heard from the claimant, and from Ms Dominique McKella on her behalf. For the
respondent we have heard from Mr Malcolm Lock, Mr Neil Mecklenburgh, Mr James
Brooks and Mr Mohamoud Ali.
Case Number: 1403533/2019 Code V
2
4. There was a degree of conflict on the evidence. We have heard the witnesses give their
evidence and have observed their demeanour in the witness box. W e had significant
concerns about the claimant’s credibility. The claimant showed a propensity to m ake wild
allegations which had no basis in fact, and many of her assertions were contrar y to the
evidence of the contemporaneous documents . She continued to make serious allegations
of conspiracies against her said to have been comm itted by her work colleagues, the
respondent’s management, and even h er own trade union representative. She repeatedly
refused to accept the effect of her actions and attitude on others even when it was obvious
from the evidence before her. This included allegations of racism which she made (and
continued to make) against her colleagues who were them selves of both similar and
different racial origin. In contrast the respondent’s witnesses gave their evidence in a calm
and measured manner which was supported where necessary b y the contemporaneous
documents, and they w ere accor dingly m uch m ore credible. Bearing all of this in mind,
wherever there was a direct conflict of evidence between the claimant and the respondent,
we prefer red the respondent’s version of events. Against this background we found the
following f acts pro ven on the balance of probabilities after considering the whole of the
evidence, both oral and docum entary, and after listening to the factual and legal
submissions made by and on behalf of the respec tive parties.
5. The Facts:
6. The respondent company is a large healthcare company which has two contracts with
Hackney Borough Council in Lon don to supp ort elderly and disabled citizens. The
respondent took over these contracts fr om a previous provider on 25 August 2017. T he
respondent has tele-care response officers who work on a rota system to attend to callouts
from residents of Hackney BC who may be in need of medical assistance. The rota system
is operated 24 hours p er day an d seven days per week. The service is co nsidered to be
the fourth emer gency service because the respondent’s staff are first responders and
normally they are the first on scene to res olve residents’ issues or to provide access for
the London Ambulance service to gain access to user s’ properties.
7. The claimant Ms Beatrice Marapara was born on 7 December 1955, and she was aged 65
at the date of this hearing. She was aged 63 at the time of many of the matters complained
of in these proceedings. She r elies on being within the age group of “over 60s”. She was
born in Zimbabwe but moved to the UK and has been a British citizen for m any years and
throughout the period relevant to these proceedings. She describes herself as “Black
African British”. She is a practising Christi an, specifically a member of the Pentecostal
Church. She would ordinarily wish to attend her church every Sunday, and usually on a
Sunday morning.
8. The claimant was employed as a Telecare Response Officer. Her period of continuous
employment commenced on 1 August 2008. Her em ployment transferred u nder TUPE to
the respondent on 25 August 2017. She resigned her employment with imm ediate effect
on 8 April 2019. At that time the telecare team consisted of eight members of staff. This
telecare response team was very diverse and of the eight members of the team only one
person identified as “white English” whilst the other seven identified as BAME, including
Mauritian, Turkish, Nigerian and Somalian.
9. The claimant had been iss ued with a written contract of employment and a written job
description. Her role in the telecare response team consisted of responding to client
emergencies, attending if necessary to their home to facilitate medical attention or to
resolve minor issues which some residents faced on a daily basis. The administration
duties were important and involved keeping client records, maintaining key s ecurity, and
updating relevant parties of any welfare concerns. T he role also required car rying out low
level repairs at service users’ properties if required.
To continue reading
Request your trial