In Marks v Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, an ET upheld Ms Marks’ claims of constructive dismissal, direct sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation in June 2015. It has been widely reported in the media, including The Telegraph and the Daily Mail, that the ET has now awarded her £832,711 in compensation. 

Ms Marks (M), HR Director, and Mr Baines (B), the Trust’s chairman, began having lunch meetings to discuss her work from 2010. Shortly before M was due to get married in March 2012, B confessed that he loved her. She was surprised by his choice of words, but thought they were nothing more than good wishes. After indicating she was uncomfortable about their relationship, contact between them reduced substantially. In March 2013 B became jealous when another senior officer bought M a glass of Prosecco on a night out. Later B sent M ‘a barrage of nasty texts’ including one calling her a ‘whore’ and accusing her of sleeping with their colleague. Weeks later B again accused her of having an affair and warned that he ‘intended to humiliate her’.

M was then subjected to spurious and unfounded allegations of harassment and bullying, engineered by B. B and Professor Trenchard (T), the chief executive, then took the decision together to suspend M. The ET found the suspension to be entirely unjustified, given the unfounded allegations, and conducted in a way which breached the Trust’s procedures. The ET concluded that this was an attempt by B and T to dismiss M or get her to resign. When the suspension was eventually lifted, M was placed on special leave, but having had no resolution to her various complaints about her treatment, she resigned.

The ET upheld M’s constructive dismissal claim finding that the employer’s treatment of M during the last year or so of her employment was an “object lesson on how to breach the implied terms of trust and confidence”. M’s direct sex discrimination claim succeeded as the ET found that when B realised that M would not have a sexual relationship with him, he treated her less favourably than he would have treated a man. M’s harassment claim was successful as B’s conduct had the purpose of violating her dignity and create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment for her. Lastly, a number of the employer’s detrimental actions towards M amounted to victimisation because she alleged breaches of the Equality Act 2010.

Content Note

The aim is to provide summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. In particular, where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out full details of all the facts, the legal arguments presented by the parties and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links provided to access full details. If no link is provided contact us for further information. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.