Ms N Gray v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust: 2302797/2022
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 January 2024 |
| Date | 04 January 2024 |
| Citation | 2302797/2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 15 January 2024 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case Number: 2302797/2022
1 of 60
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Heard at:
London South
On:
2nd to 6th October 2023
Claimant:
Ms N Gray
Respondent:
Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Before:
Employment Judge Ramsden
With members
Mr A Fairbank
Mr R Singh
Representation:
Claimant
Mr A Johnston
Respondent
Mr A Ross, Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The Claimant’s claims are not well-founded and are dismissed.
REASONS
Background
2. The Respondent is an NHS trust which provides healthcare service to the
population of Surrey and beyond.
3. The Claimant worked for the Respondent for 28 years, ultimately in a senior
position within the Violence Reduction (VR) team. The Claimant’s employment
as a Senior VR Trainer ended on 18 May 2022. Early conciliation started and
ended on 26 May 2022, and the Claimant presented her claim form on 15 August
2022. She has brought various complaints against the Respondent, of:
Case Number: 2302797/2022
2 of 60
a) Constructive unfair dismissal; and
b) Disability discrimination.
4. The issues to be decided in the substantive hearing to determine the Claimant’s
claims were set out in the Case Management Orders of EJ A Frazer on 24 April
2023.
5. The essence of the Claimant’s claims are that the Respondent failed to manage
her disability, namely the breast cancer with which she was first diagnosed in
2017. She says that the Respondent failed to heed the recommendations in
occupational health (OH) reports, failed to make reasonable adjustments and did
not provide redress to her grievance. She resigned, on notice, in circumstances
which she says amounted to a fundamental breach of her contract by the
Respondent.
6. More specifically, the Claimant alleges:
a) Constructive unfair dismissal;
b) Direct disability discrimination, under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010
(the 2010 Act);
c) Discrimination arising from disability, under section 15 of the 2010 Act;
d) Failure to make reasonable adjustments, under section 21 of the 2010 Act;
e) Harassment related to disability, under section 26 of the 2010 Act; and
f) Victimisation, under section 27 of the 2010 Act.
7. The Respondent denies these claims, and says that the Claimant’s employment
was terminated by way of her resignation.
The hearing
8. The Respondent was represented in the hearing by Mr Ross. The Claimant
presented was represented by her partner, Mr Johnston, a lay representative.
9. The Respondent served hearing bundle of 750 pages on the parties, in
accordance with the case management order of EJ A Frazer. It became clear that
the Claimant had not disclosed evidence relevant to remedy, and so this hearing
was converted to a liability-only hearing, with considerations of remedy to follow
if any of her claims are made out.
10. The Claimant had applied for a witness order in respect of her trade union
representative, Andy Doran, but that application was made only days before the
hearing commenced, on 19 September 2023, after the date for exchange of
witness evidence had passed. The Tribunal refused that Order, on the basis that:
Case Number: 2302797/2022
3 of 60
a) Mr Doran’s evidence would only go to what happened in a couple of
meetings which he attended with the Claimant, which the Claimant is able
to speak to; and
b) it would not be in the interests of justice to postpone the hearing to await
that evidence, given the parties were present and five days booked out in
this busy Tribunal’s time. Moreover, any postponement would mean this
matter would likely wait for 18 months or more for a hearing slot, which is
not proportionate when it would only be to hear evidence from a witness
whose evidence the Claimant says will duplicate parts of her own.
11. Each of the Claimant and the Respondent had made applications for specific
disclosure, but there was no need for the Tribunal to determine those, as the
parties cooperated to share the documents in their possession on the following
matters, each of which was added to the Bundle:
a) Email correspondence concerning the Claimant’s invitation to attend a
development day with her now partner, Mr Johnston, and his team, on 24
January 2020, during her employment by the Respondent;
b) A job advertisement for the post of VR Lead at the Respondent, posted on
3 July 2023;
c) Email correspondence between Peter Stevens (the Claimant’s line
manager from August 2020) and Kim Stonebridge (Mr Stevens’ line
manager) on 4 October 2021 about Personal Safety and Conflict
Management Training;
d) Email correspondence between Mr Doran and (among others) Victoria
Bishop (a member of the Respondent’s HR team) about concerns raised
by Mr Doran on the Claimant’s behalf that the Claimant was mismanaged
and disregarded during the latter part of her employment with the
Respondent;
e) The learning objectives for a two-day refresher VR training course;
f) The learning objectives for a four-day VR training course; and
g) An email from Gareth Heighes to Mette Laszkiewicz, of 2 October 2023,
summarising when the Respondent delivered a course on Personal Safety
externally (on two dates: 18 November and 1 December 2021).
These were entered in as pages 751 to 772 (inclusive) of the Bundle.
12. Mr Johnston and the Claimant gave evidence in support of her case, and the
Tribunal heard from Ms Badmus, Ms Stonebridge, Ms Newsome, Ms Laszkiewicz
and Mr Stevens for the Respondent.
13. Mr Ross made oral and written submissions on the conclusion of evidence. The
Claimant chose not to make oral or written submissions, but Mr Johnston had
obtained a copy of an Employment Tribunal decision in McKenzie v University
To continue reading
Request your trial