Mr A St Auburn v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Unison Trade Union: 6009627/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant has no reasonable prospect of establishing:a. that alleged discriminatory acts at paragraphs 4(a) to 4(m) in the appendix were part of a course of conduct over a period that ended after 11th May 2024; orb. that it is just and equitable to extend the time limit for bringing complaints of discrimination in relation to those acts.[2]The complaints of discrimination in relation to those acts are therefore struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a).[3]The claim against the Second Respondent is dismissed. Approved by: Employment Judge Tueje Date: 12 January 2026 Date: 5 February 2026 APPENDIX Time -s123 EA 2010[1]Has C shown that his claims under EA 2010 are in time (to include consideration of whether there was conduct on the part of the R extending over a period (s123(3){a) EA 2010)?[2]If not, for any allegations that are found to be out of time, has C shown that it is just and equitable pursuant to s123{1)(b) EA 2010 for the Employment Tribunal to consider those allegations? Direct discrimination s13 EA 2010 - Race The Claimant is black, Caribbean[4]Did the R subject C to the following treatment as alleged or at all? a) On 14 September 2020 Lauren D'Souza ("LDS") gave only selected information to the police regarding an internal investigation relating to missing medication. C says this was to mislead the police into believing that the medication incident had not been investigated previously and had not had an outcome. C says what followed was collusion between individuals at the Trust and from the Union to continue the campaign against C in order to avoid LDS's original flawed discriminatory act to be exposed. b) Between 14 and 17 September 2020 LDS called C everyday asking C questions about a complaint raised by a member of the public without ever informing C that she had informed the police about the missing medication investigation. c) Between 15-17 December 2021 Liz Jacob ("LJ") supplied the NMC with false information in a serious case incident report. d) Nicholas MacMaster {"NMM") gave information to management which C had asked him not to give:a. The information given was the complaint form along with the initial framework of the statement of C's account of what took place on 27 August 2020;b. C says the complaint and statement were emailed to NMM on 21 March 2022 and that NMM would have emailed this to management on or around this date. e) On 3 May 2022 Liz Jacob sat in a meeting with NMM debunking a complaint Chad made about the serious case incident report she had written. f) NMM did not follow the complaints procedure of the Union in June 2022. g) On 27 June 2022 LDS failed to refer C to OH after learning of his injuries from NMM. h) On 17 May 2023 LDS emailed a private and confidential letter for C to UNISON but posted it to C so it arrived on 18 May 2023. i) Caroline Fife emailed LDS on 21 June 2023 stating that it was a national decision that the Union is no longer supporting thec. C. C says a national decision would have to be made by the Executive committee for this to happen and that Caroline Fife was not an executive and nor did she sit on the committee at this time. j) On 12 September 2023 LDS did not maintain any of the records of the serious investigation against Casper the Allegations against a member of staff Company policy and procedure. k) On 12 September 2023, LDS, after stating to C that he could not take any more sick leave after 30 September 2023, took no active steps to support C's return to work by not initiating a date or plan to return to work after 30 September 2023. l) The Union failed to contact C as part of its investigation on or around September 2023 m) John Stolliday emailed Con or around September or October 2023 saying that the Union had emailed C seven times and did not get a response. C says this was false and he had not been emailed. n) Isabella Davis-Fernandez and the HR department deliberately delayed the appeal process to cause C's limitation period of 3 months less 1 day to expire. o) On 21 June 2024 the appeal panel refused to answer some of C's questions at the appeal hearing but stated that the hearing was conducted as per Trust policy.[5]If yes, was this treatment less favourable treatment because of C's race?[6]Comparators: C relies on actual comparators in relation to the initial investigation {4(a)): 3 white nurses. Remedies[7]Is C entitled to an award for injury to feelings and if so, at what level?[8]Is C entitled to any other award of compensation and, if so, at what level?[9]Should there be an uplift or reduction in compensation in respect of any alleged failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures?[10]Should a declaration be made?[11]Should a recommendation be made and, if so, in what form?