Tribunal Upholds Employer's Decision to Dismiss After Finding No Evidence of Race or Sex Discrimination
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed an appeal concerning allegations of race and sex discrimination, finding no error in the original tribunal's decision.
• public
Tribunal Rejects Discrimination Claims in Employment Dispute
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld a lower tribunal's decision to dismiss a former employee's claims of race and sex discrimination, and victimisation. The case, Dr B Jones v Viiv Healthcare UK Ltd and Others, saw the appellant, Dr Jones, allege that her dismissal stemmed from discriminatory practices and that a breakdown in working relationships was unfairly attributed to her.
The tribunal meticulously examined the evidence, finding that while words like "aggressive" and "hostile" were used to describe Dr Jones's behaviour, there was no evidence to suggest these descriptors were influenced by racial or sexual stereotyping. The EAT agreed with the original tribunal's assessment that these descriptions were genuine observations of her conduct and not indicative of discrimination.
Dr Jones had raised concerns about her treatment, including allegations of microaggressions and unfair investigations. However, the tribunal concluded that the investigations into her conduct, including an external inquiry by Ms Slater, were initiated due to valid concerns about her performance and working relationships, not as a result of her protected characteristics or prior complaints.
Crucially, the tribunal found that the decision to suspend and subsequently dismiss Dr Jones was based on a substantial breakdown in working relationships, supported by evidence from multiple colleagues, including managers, peers, and direct reports. The EAT found that the tribunal had properly considered the evidence and made positive findings of fact regarding the reasons for the disciplinary actions.
The appeal raised three grounds, focusing on stereotyping, the burden of proof, and the tribunal's assessment of the reasons for the breakdown in working relationships. In each instance, the EAT found no error in the tribunal's approach.
His Honour Judge Auerbach, delivering the judgment, stated, "In the overall context of the particular facts of the given case, a particular factual feature may be found to cause, or contribute to, the shifting of the burden in that case. But such a finding, in one case, does not give rise to a rule of law; and it does not follow that the presence of a particular feature of that general kind will always cause the burden to shift, whenever it appears in another case. All depends on the overall relevant factual picture and context of the given case."
The tribunal's detailed findings highlighted a consistent pattern of concerns raised by various individuals regarding Dr Jones's communication style, interactions with others, and overall performance. Despite Dr Jones's assertions of discrimination, the tribunal found no evidence to support these claims as the basis for the employer's actions.
The appeal was therefore dismissed, confirming the original tribunal's thorough examination of the facts and its adherence to legal principles concerning discrimination and burden of proof.
Read the entire judgment here: Dr B Jones v Viiv Healthcare UK Ltd and Others [2026] EAT 24 - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/697cc145ec71a16669612d3d/Dr_B_Jones_v_Viiv_Healthcare_UK_Ltd___Others__2026__EAT_24.pdf
