Author: Keely Rushmore

Dr Eva Michalak has won £4.5 million in compensation after her bosses mounted a campaign against her when she fell pregnant.

An Employment Tribunal recently awarded the staggering sum of £4.5 million by way of compensation for unlawful sex and race discrimination (a figure which the tabloids have pointed out would be enough to pay 210 nurses for a year). This is thought to be the highest ever discrimination award made in the UK.

Polish born Dr Eva Michalak was employed by the Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust as a consultant.  She claimed that she took maternity leave and on her return raised concerns about payments made to colleagues in her absence (but not to her) which lead to a concerted campaign by the Trust (referred to in the proceedings as the “Get Eva” campaign) to end her employment.  As part of this campaign she claimed that she was subjected to a bogus disciplinary procedure and an unjustified and lengthy period of suspension from 2006 which culminated in her dismissal in 2008.  She said that her dismissal was the conclusion of an extensive process of sex and race discrimination related to the fact that she’d made a protected disclosure and amounted to disability discrimination. The Tribunal accepted her arguments and went so far as it say it was ‘positively outraged’ by her treatment by the Trust and senior employees within it.

It would be fair to say that the case is exceptional. As a result of her treatment by the Trust she developed a chronic and disabling post-traumatic stress disorder, together with depression and anxiety. The Tribunal were told how she was left unable to accomplish the simplest of tasks without oversight and supervision, leading to her husband having to give up work to care for her.  The Tribunal concluded that she would never work again.

Dr Michalak earned just short of £90,000 in her post.  The £4.5 million figure was based on numerous heads of loss, including £30,000 for injury to feelings, £50,000 for psychiatric injury, £170,000 for lost earnings to date, £941,000 for future loss of salary (taking her to retirement age), £666,000 for pension losses, £50,000 for medical treatment, £43,000 for past care and £31,000 for future care. The dismissal had taken place when the statutory grievance and dismissal procedures were in place and therefore the Tribunal had discretion to award a 50% uplift in respect of Trust’s failure to follow the statutory grievance procedure.  The Tribunal said that it would have had ‘no hesitation’ in ordering the full 50% uplift were it not for the amount this would translate to in monetary terms, and instead elected to apply a more modest 15% figure.  A significant portion of the £4.5 million (almost £2 million) was an uplift to take into account the fact that the compensation would for the most part be taxable.  The Tribunal concluded that the Trust and some named respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the award.

This was certainly an exceptional case but serves as a reminder of the huge potential liabilities that can arise in discrimination cases and the need to ensure that staff receive and understand equal opportunities training.

For more information about Equal Opportunities training, click here.
To read more Unfair Dismissal related articles, click here.

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact Keely Rushmore on 01727 798017 or by email at keely.rushmore@salaw.com or any member of the Employment Team.

© SA LAW 2012
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual case.

Author: Vanessa James

A former NHS manager, Elliot Browne, has been awarded £933,115 in compensation, succeeding in his Tribunal claim against the NHS for unfair dismissal and race discrimination;  one of the highest payments ever awarded for race discrimination.

The Tribunal found that Mr Browne had been subjected to “systematic discrimination” and “an intimidating environment” from 2007 until his dismissal in 2008 – although the losing Respondent did not see it that way and have appealed the decision.

Mr Browne worked for the Central Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) for 34 years, and became the first and only black man to hold the position of divisional director for clinical scientific services with the Trust.

Following the Trust’s concerns regarding budget management and leadership in his department, Mr Browne raised what the Tribunal deemed a “well-founded” complaint of discrimination. He claimed that his singling out for criticism was unfair and discriminatory when compared with his employer’s treatment of white colleagues. Following his complaint, the Trust were found by the Tribunal to have “closed ranks” and began disciplinary proceedings to dismiss him.

As a result, Mr Browne was signed off work with stress and claimed his employer’s treatment had left him close to a breakdown. Mr Browne was supported in his claim by Unite who called for the Trust to “tackle its culture of institutionalised racism.” The Tribunal award compensated Mr Browne for aggravated damages, demonstrating its view that the treatment suffered had a severe impact on his health.

This level of award, whilst unusual, demonstrates the Tribunal’s current view towards claims of discrimination. In the last 2-3 years we have noticed a marked shift in the Tribunal’s approach and the line of questioning used in hearings, which focuses on ‘subconscious discrimination’ to determine whether there is an inherent culture of discrimination within a workplace.

What is also important to understand is that while the Tribunal found that the treatment amounted to race discrimination, the Respondent did not appear to believe they discriminated.  We can also speculate about why the Respondent did not settle the matter before trial if it was in any way apparent to the Respondent or their legal team that they would lose to such an extent.  This shows that spotting the risks of such a case occurring in any organisation is not that straight forward.

Vanessa James is a Partner and Head of the Employment Department at SA Law. Vanessa specialises in discrimination claims, shareholder disputes and employee disputes.

To read more Unfair Dismissal related articles, click here.

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact Vanessa James on 01727 798089 or by email at vanessa.james@salaw.com or any member of the Employment Team.

© SA LAW 2012
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual case

Author: Alexis Asher

From 1 February 2011, there will be an increase in the annual compensation limits within Employment law as a result of the Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2010.

To read more about the  changes, click here to be directed to the article on the SA Law website.

Should you require any specific advice on Tribunal matters, please contact the Employment Team at SA Law on 01727 798000.

Author: Chris Cook

Recently there have been many examples in the news of companies monitoring internet usage, with some completely blocking social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace.

Last week a 16-year-old girl was dismissed from her office job after placing an entry on her Facebook page stating that her job was “boring”. The employee, who worked for a marketing and logistics company in Essex, had only been working there for three weeks and didn’t mention her employer’s name on her Facebook page.  A company representative said that “her display of disrespect and dissatisfaction undermined the relationship and made it untenable.”

This case clearly illustrates that an employee’s conduct outside as well as inside the workplace can result in disciplinary action being taken by their employers.  It is also a stark warning to employees that any public criticism of their employer will damage its reputation, which in turn might lose them their jobs. 

However, employers are reminded that this situation might well have been dealt with differently had the employee in question had more than one year’s service with the company, giving her protection against an unfair dismissal.  Advice should therefore be sought in respect of each individual situation before any decision is taken as to whether to dismiss and to minimise the risk of an unfair dismissal.

The news on everyone’s minds this morning is the Budget announcement and the Government’s attempt to rescue the country from recession. My mind however is on more important matters ….. football of course and the Arsenal match against Dynamo Kiev, in which Cesc Fabregas takes his first kick as the Gunners’ Captain.

Of course, all eyes will be on William Gallas, stripped of the hallowed captaincy for his outburst against his team mates last week in which he claimed that they lacked bravery and accused them of in-fighting and insulting behaviour. I took an interest in the story from an employment law perspective. Really, Arsene Wenger is no different from any other boss trying to discipline an unruly member of staff. The “Guvernors” choice of sanction was a demotion and he acted swiftly. He demonstrated that he is not afraid to discipline any member of staff, even a star footballer; just as any manager in a business should not be afraid to bring to staff’s attention poor performance or unsatisfactory behaviour. (more…)