"Speak Freely, Report Boldly"

Tribunal Cases

Recent UK Employment Tribunal Cases
(2024 -2025)

Mrs Rachel Wright-Turner v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: Record-Breaking £4.6 Million Disability Discrimination Award

Mrs Rachel Wright-Turner was awarded £4.6 million in one of the largest employment tribunal awards ever made in the UK. Wright-Turner, who worked as Director of Public Services Reform, suffered from ADHD and PTSD following her work supporting Grenfell Tower fire victims. The Council extended her probationary period while she was on sick leave without consultation, then dismissed her without explanation or opportunity to appeal. The tribunal found the Council had discriminated against her, harassed her, and senior officers including the Chief Executive had deliberately misled the tribunal by backdating documents. The award included loss of earnings, pension losses, injury to feelings, psychiatric injury, aggravated damages, exemplary damages of £15,000, and £271,000 for non-compliance with ACAS codes.

Link: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mrs-r-wright-turner-v-london-borough-of-hammersmith-and-fulham-and-ms-k-dero-2206237-slash-2018

Mrs Katrina Hibbert v The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police: £1.1 Million Award for Side-Hustle Discrimination

Katrina Hibbert, a safeguarding sergeant with Thames Valley Police, was awarded £1,176,368 after being constructively dismissed for disability discrimination. Hibbert suffered from complex PTSD, anxiety, and depression due to the emotionally intense nature of her work with child exploitation victims. Following occupational health advice, she set up a party tent business as a therapeutic outlet with the force's approval. When she was signed off sick with stress in 2019, Thames Valley Police withdrew her business permission without medical consultation, claiming it was "unsuitable to be running an active business whilst unable to fulfil obligations to your employer." The force then launched gross misconduct proceedings against her. The tribunal found that withdrawing the permission removed a crucial reasonable adjustment and constituted disability discrimination, ultimately forcing her resignation.

Link: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mrs-k-hibbert-v-the-chief-constable-of-thames-valley-police-3310944-slash-2020

Rob Ogden v Booker Ltd: Unfair Dismissal in "Toxic" Workplace Culture

Rob Ogden, a delivery driver who had worked for Booker since 2016, was dismissed for gross misconduct after using offensive language towards a female colleague during a conversation about weight loss. Ogden admitted calling the colleague a "fing m" and making derogatory comments. However, the Manchester Employment Tribunal found the dismissal unfair, describing the workplace as having a "toxic" and "lawless" culture with no real enforcement of dignity at work standards by managers. The tribunal noted that widespread inappropriate "banter" and pranks were tolerated, and that Ogden had never been pulled up on such behavior before, giving him a false sense of security. The tribunal concluded that while Ogden's language was offensive, a written warning would have been more appropriate given the context of the dysfunctional workplace culture where managers were "complicit in that dysfunction."

Link: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-r-ogden-v-booker-ltd-2400482-slash-2024

Nadine Hanson v Interaction Recruitment Specialists Ltd: Constructive Dismissal After Manager Ignored Greetings

Nadine Hanson won her unfair dismissal claim after her new managing director, Andrew Gilchrist, ignored her greetings on three occasions. Hanson, who had worked for the company for 20 years, arrived late after a medical appointment in September 2023 and attempted to greet Gilchrist three times without response. When she tried to show him proof of her appointment, he pushed her phone aside and suggested she leave. Within an hour, he emailed her direct reports offering them pay rises without consulting her. The Leeds Employment Tribunal ruled that while ignoring greetings alone may not constitute a fundamental breach, it contributed significantly to breaching the implied term of trust and confidence. Judge Sarah Davies found Gilchrist's evidence "unconvincing" and noted he had quickly formed negative opinions about Hanson without proper discussion about her work. Hanson resigned two weeks later due to anxiety, sleepless nights, and feeling humiliated and undervalued.

Link: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66fcbef60835d303e7583c56/Ms_N_Hanson_v_Interaction_Recruitment_Specialists_Ltd_-_1804375-2023_-_Reserved.pdf

Meliesha Jones v Vale Curtains and Blinds: Admin Worker Unfairly Dismissed After Accidental Customer Email

Meliesha Jones, an administrator at Vale Curtains and Blinds, was unfairly dismissed after accidentally sending an email to a customer rather than forwarding it to a colleague. Jones received an email from a customer she found difficult and wrote to a colleague: "Can you change this… he's a twat so it doesn't matter if you can't." She accidentally clicked 'reply' instead of 'forward,' sending it directly to the customer. Upon realizing her mistake, Jones immediately apologized and offered to pay the customer £500 from her own money as a goodwill gesture. When the customer's wife complained and threatened to go to the press and post online, Jones was dismissed. The tribunal found her dismissal unfair, ruling that the investigation was inadequate and the decision to dismiss fell outside the band of reasonable responses, particularly given her clean disciplinary record and immediate remorse.

Link: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-m-jones-v-vale-curtains-and-blinds-3311640-slash-2023

Professor Jo Phoenix v The Open University: £ Undisclosed Settlement for Gender Critical Beliefs Discrimination

Professor Jo Phoenix, a criminology professor at the Open University, won her discrimination claim after being harassed for her gender critical beliefs. Phoenix co-founded the Gender Critical Research Network, an academic research group, which led to a sustained campaign against her by colleagues. She was compared by her Deputy Head of Department to "the racist uncle at the Christmas dinner table" and subjected to an online open letter that encouraged a "pile-on" from others. The tribunal found Phoenix had been directly discriminated against and harassed, and that the University failed to protect her from attacks by colleagues for fear of being seen to support gender critical beliefs. The University delayed dealing with her grievance and terminated the process after she resigned, which constituted post-employment victimisation. Phoenix was awarded compensation (amount undisclosed but settled), and the tribunal ruled her constructive dismissal was both unfair and discriminatory.

Link: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/j-phoenix-v-the-open-university-and-others-3322700-slash-2021-and-3323841-slash-2021

Roz Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre: £69,000 for Gender Critical Beliefs Discrimination

Roz Adams, a counsellor at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, was awarded £69,000 after being constructively dismissed due to her gender critical beliefs. Adams believed that survivors of male sexual violence should be able to choose whether to engage with male or female counsellors. She questioned an email about a colleague that described them using they/them pronouns, asking for clarity on how to respond if service users asked if the colleague was male. This led to a deeply flawed disciplinary investigation where senior management believed her views were "inherently hateful." The tribunal's judgment was highly critical, calling the description of Adams' email as "humiliating and transphobic" as "nonsense" and stating the colleague's reaction had been "completely overblown." The tribunal ruled the investigation should never have been launched and was "clearly motivated by a strong belief that the claimant's views were inherently hateful." The disciplinary process was described as "completely spurious and mishandled."

Link: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/r-d-adams-v-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-4102236-slash-2023

Rachel Meade v Westminster City Council and Social Work England: £58,000 for Gender Critical Beliefs Harassment

Rachel Meade, a social worker, was awarded over £58,000 including aggravated and exemplary damages after being harassed for her gender critical beliefs expressed on her private Facebook profile. A colleague complained to Social Work England (SWE) that Meade's posts were transphobic, leading to a fitness to practice investigation. Meade was told to either accept a one-year warning or face a hearing. Under pressure and fearing job loss, she accepted despite her immediate managers having no concerns about her practice. Westminster City Council then suspended her on gross misconduct charges, with the disciplinary investigation taking a year to complete and resulting in a final written warning. The tribunal found none of the Facebook posts were transphobic but were legitimate manifestations of Meade's protected belief. The tribunal ruled that both the Council and SWE had impeded her right to freedom of expression and harassed her through prolonged and unjustified processes.

Link: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-r-meade-v-westminster-city-council-and-social-work-england-2200179-slash-2022-and-2211483-slash-2022

Mr Richardson v West Midlands Trains Ltd: £42,000 for Unfair Dismissal Over Workplace Pranks

Train driver Mr Richardson was awarded £42,000 for unfair and wrongful dismissal after being sacked for placing a tarantula exoskeleton and later a snakeskin in a colleague's pigeonhole as workplace pranks. Richardson intended the pranks to elicit harmless surprise and lighthearted reactions. However, the company dismissed him for gross misconduct. The tribunal found that while Richardson's actions were "childish," they did not warrant termination. The judge ruled that the dismissal for what was intended as harmless workplace humor was disproportionate, particularly given there was no evidence of malicious intent or previous similar conduct. The tribunal emphasized that the sanction of dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses available to the employer for such behavior.

Link: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-j-richardson-v-west-midlands-trains-ltd-3300402-slash-2023-and-3302080-slash-2023

Dr Nigel MacLennan v The British Psychological Society: Landmark Whistleblowing Protection for Trustees

Dr Nigel MacLennan, President-Elect and trustee of the British Psychological Society (BPS), brought a whistleblowing claim after being expelled from his membership in May 2021. MacLennan believed the expulsion was retaliatory for reporting concerns about the organization. Initially, the Employment Tribunal dismissed his claim, ruling that unpaid charity trustees did not qualify for whistleblowing protection under UK law. However, in October 2024, the Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned this decision in a landmark ruling. The EAT argued that trustees, because of their significant responsibilities, should be considered to have "occupational status" and therefore qualify for whistleblowing protection. This decision potentially extends legal protections to over one million trustees across the UK, marking a significant development in employment law and governance for the charitable sector.

Link: Available on EAT and tribunal websites

Tesco Stores Ltd v USDAW: Supreme Court Blocks "Fire and Rehire" Strategy

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of USDAW (Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers), preventing Tesco from dismissing workers as part of a "fire and rehire" strategy designed to remove employees' rights to retained pay. The case stemmed from a dispute over Tesco employees who had been promised retained pay as part of their contracts in exchange for staying with the business during a challenging period. Tesco sought to terminate these contracts to strip employees of this benefit, arguing it had served its purpose. The Supreme Court found that the right to retained pay was a permanent contractual entitlement and could not be removed through dismissal and re-engagement without breaching the agreement. The Court reinstated an injunction preventing Tesco from dismissing the employees, emphasizing that contractual terms cannot be unilaterally altered simply to remove benefits, setting an important precedent against fire and rehire practices.

Link: Supreme Court judgment available on BAILII