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: Steve Kenneford

With The Legal Onbudsman’s latest piece of research stating that “the legal professions confused system of regulation is leaving consumers without protection if things go wrong”. SA Law’s Steve Kenneford turns his attention to how to spot a quality, regulated law firm.

All trades and professions are populated by people who are trained to do the job for which they are  employed. That is a given, and consumers should be entitled to expect a minimum (satisfactory) level of competency and professionalism. However, when the need for a lawyer arises what will set one provider apart from the rest? Who has that ‘added value’?

Commodisised legal services providers are on the increase. With the advent of the changes to law firm management and ownership (Alternative Business Structures) which will be introduced later  this year, this is only set to increase further. So with more choice in the market place it is important that the consumer knows what type of organsiation they are instructing and who they are regulated by. This is where quality standard schemes come into their own.

Examples of quality standards can be found within  trades such as plumbing/gas and electrical installers, the former being covered by CORGI (Council for Recognised Gas Installers) now GasSafe, the latter by NICEIC (National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting) The NHS even operate NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) so it is about time that the legal industry followed suit.

Law Firms are highly regulated. Their integrity and professional competence is overseen in hawklike fashion by The Law Society, Solicitors Regulation Authority and The Legal Ombudsman. These organisations set the minimum standards to which law firms need to adhere.

Quality schemes within the legal profession address quality of service, governance, planning (business, strategy and operational) performance and management.

So when buying legal services what do you look for to ensure you will instruct a firm that will add value and go that extra mile?

The answer is the Lexcel Accreditation.
Lexcel is The Law Societys’ practice management standard. The scheme certifies that certain standards have been met following independent assessment. The standard is only awarded to law firms who meet the highest management and client care standards. Lexcel Accredited practices undergo rigorous independent assessment every year to ensure that high standards are maintained. The standard is exceedingly difficult to win and equally hard to retain. In the arena of legal services a Lexcel accredited practice is the safest possible pair of hands.

More specifically within the framework of legal quality standards The Law Society has just launched its’ Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS). This will provide a recognised quality standard for residential conveyancing services within a law firm. The CQS will establish a level of credibility for member firms based upon integrity, adherance to best practice, and a high level of client focused efficiency.

So “Who Ya Gonna Call?” Well, a shrewd and informed consumer will undoubtedly be inclined towards a law firm who has a recognised quality accreditation – that’s who you should call!

SA Law are a Lexcel Accredited law firm and in the process of being assessed for The Law Society CQS standard.

If you would like more information or advice relating to a specific matter, please do not hesitate to contact Steve Kenneford on 01727 798000 or by email at steve.kenneford@salaw.com or any member of the Commercial Dispute Resolution team.

© SA LAW 2011
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 cases.