Ms S Ashraf v NHS England (England and Wales : Part Time Workers) -[2025] UKET 2204615/2022- (20 January 2025)

Key Facts

Issues

• Allegation 10 – since August 2020, on dates unspecified, by Mr David Marston allowing the claimant to attend unspecified WorkStream meetings with no knowledge of updates to feedback. [harassment]
• Allegation 7 – around 2019, on a date unspecified, but shortly before the claimant was due to go on maternity leave, by Mr David Marston telling the claimant she was mad for having more children. [harassment]
• Allegation 12 – since August 2020, on dates unspecified, by Mr David Marston failing to copy the claimant into unspecified emails and keep the claimant 'up-to-date with regards to midwifery meetings.' [PTWR]
• Allegation 5 – on a date unspecified, by Mr David Marston 'kicking' the claimant out of a meeting and stating, 'Samina you are not meant to be in this meeting, you need to leave now!' [direct (race, religion), harassment]
• Allegation 2 – in 2016/2017 on a date unspecified by a person unspecified failing to promote the claimant to an unspecified more senior role (i.e., band 8a or higher). [direct (race and religion), PTWR]
• Allegation 8 – from March 2020, during the lockdown, on dates unspecified, by a person or persons unspecified, failing to give the claimant an opportunity, in a manner unspecified, to work from abroad. [direct (race, religion), harassment]
• Allegation 3 – since May 2018, at times and dates unspecified, in a manner unspecified, by Mr David Marston denying training (unspecified) to the claimant. It being the claimant's statement that she has received no formal training and development since returning from maternity leave in 2020. [direct (race, sex), harassment]
• Allegation 9 – since August 2020, on dates unspecified, by Mr David Marston excluding the claimant, in a manner unspecified, from emails and updates on work streams, being which the claimant needed to know. [harassment]
• Allegation 4 – in August 2018 on a date unspecified, by Mr David Marston becoming aggressive to the claimant, in a manner not specified, after the claimant told him she was going on holiday to Pakistan. [direct (race, religion), harassment]
• Allegation 1 – in 2016, on a date unspecified, by Mr Paul Smollen ignoring the claimant's request for a new manager. The nature and date of the request is not specified. [direct (sex), harassment]
• Allegation 11 – since August 2020, on dates unspecified, by Mr David Marston delegating 'a lot of work to the claimant, without continuous involvement in the work or knowledge in the handover.' [PTWR]
• Allegation 6 – in October 2018, on a date or dates unspecified, by the respondent through a person not specified, not allowing the claimant to sit with the rest of her team. [direct (race)]
• Allegation 30 – In May 2022, on a date unspecified, the claimant complained, in a manner unspecified, to Ms Sharon Ogunbiyi, but being asked to return to her manager, Mr David Marston, to resolve her concerns. The complaint appearing to be the action of Ms Ogunbiyi. [harassment]
• Allegation 14 – on a date unspecified, possibly in 2020, by Mr David Marston failing to tell the claimant there was a further £72,000 to be allocated and then complaining, in a manner unspecified, the claimant had allocated an extra £72,000. [direct (race, religion)]
• Allegation 19 – in January 2022, in a manner unspecified, by Mr David Marston and Mr Stanley Babukutty telling the claimant not to attend a best place to work – change hub meeting (date unspecified). [direct (race, sex), harassment]
• Allegation 29 – on 3 March 2022, following the claimant's request for flexible working made to Lynda Frost, being a request to enable her to attend a digital first meeting, by Ms Lynda Frost pushing the claimant back in a manner unspecified. [allegation not specified as any type of discrimination]
• Allegation 17 – in January 2022, following the claimant's request for project management training (the request not being specified), by Mr David Marston making it 'difficult for the claimant to complete the training' including requesting the claimant complete an online taster first. [direct (race), harassment]
• Allegation 26 – on dates, and times unspecified, but on 'regular basis', by Mr David Marston shouting at the claimant. It being the claimant's case that in December 2021 David Marston asked the claimant what she had done over the three weeks while she was on leave and thereby telling her off. [direct (race, religion, sex), harassment]
• Allegation 24 – in February 2022, on a date unspecified, in a manner unspecified, by Ms Lynda Frost denying the claimant bereavement leave. It being the claimant's case leave was granted to Priya Unjia. [direct (religion), harassment, PTWR]
• Allegation 32 – by a person unspecified, on 7 July 2022, in a manner unspecified, putting the claimant on leave until June 2023. [harassment]
• Allegation 25 – between December 2021 and March 2022, on dates and occasions unspecified, asking the claimant to inform Ms Lynda Frost what the claimant 'had done in the last three months.' [direct (race, religion, sex), harassment]
• Allegation 18 – in January 2022, by Mr David Marston, in a manner unspecified, making allegations that the claimant had not allocated funding in time to WorkStream (unspecified). [direct (sex), harassment]
• Allegation 27 - on 22 February 2022, the claimant wrote to Ms Lynda Frost making allegations against Mr David Marston, and by Ms Lynda Frost responding, on a date and in the manner unspecified, that 'she did not know what the claimant wanted her to do.' [direct, (race, religion, sex), harassment]
• Allegation 20 – around January 2022, on a date unspecified, by Mr David Marston telling the claimant that 'she should stop supporting a female professor, Prof Elizabeth Hughes.' [direct, (sex), harassment]
• Allegation 28 – on 3 March 2022, by Lynda Frost not permitting the claimant to attend a digital champion meeting, and by asking her to discuss the matter with Mr David Marston. [direct (race, religion), harassment]
• Allegation 23 – in February 2022, on a date unspecified, by Mr David Marston, and Mr Stanley Babukutty, at a risk management meeting, insulting and reprimanding the claimant for attending. [direct (race), harassment]
• Allegation 33- in July 2022, in a manner not specified, following the claimant telling Ms Sharon Ogunbiyi that she did not want Ms Antubam or anyone who worked closely with David Marston, Lynda Frost, or Paul Smollem managing her, by Ms Antubam ignoring this. [direct (race, religion), harassment]
• Allegation 31 – since 1 June 2022, by Ms Joyce Antubam, by email, on dates unspecified, sending requests that the claimant be managed by Ms Antubam. [harassment]
• Allegation 15 – in December 2021, on a date unspecified, following the claimant's request to work more days, on a date or manner unspecified, ignoring the request. [PTWR]
• Allegation 21 – in January 2022, on a date unspecified, in a manner unspecified, by Mr David Marston and Mr Stanley Babukutty denying the claimant education contract training due to take place in the 24 and 26 January 2022. [PTWR]
• Allegation 13 – in late 2020, following the claimant's return from leave, on a date unspecified, by Mr David Marston blaming the claimant for sending out late histopathology letters relating to agreements. [direct (race, religion)]
• Allegation 22 – between January 2022 and March 2022, following complaints (unspecified) made to Ms Lynda Frost about alleged bullying and harassment from David Marston, by Ms Lynda Frost ignoring the claimant's complaints and concerns. [direct (race, religion)]
• Allegation 16 – in December 2021, on a date unspecified, by Mr David Marston stating the claimant was not allowed to do a postgraduate degree and stating 'How can a mother do a master's degree?', and by comparing her to a male colleague. [direct (sex), harassment, PTWR]

Holdings

• All claims of less favourable treatment contrary to the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 were dismissed. The tribunal found no evidence the treatment was on the ground of part-time work or lacked objective justification.
• All claims of direct discrimination, including those based on race, religion, and sex, were found to fail and were dismissed by the tribunal. The claimant did not establish the alleged detrimental treatment occurred or that it was because of any protected characteristic.
• All claims of harassment were dismissed. The tribunal concluded that the claimant failed to prove the alleged treatment occurred, and even if it did, there was no evidence it was intended to harass or related to a protected characteristic.

Legal Principles

• The tribunal applied the reverse burden of proof under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010. Where the claimant proved facts that could indicate unlawful discrimination, the respondent had to demonstrate that the treatment was not based on protected characteristics. This was central to evaluating claims of direct discrimination and harassment.
• The tribunal addressed the admissibility of documents submitted late by the claimant. It found that bundle B documents were not properly identified in the claimant's evidence, lacked relevance, and were not admitted as they were not adequately referenced in pleadings or disclosed to the respondent.

Precedent Name

• Nazir and Aslam v Asim and Nottinghamshire Black Partnership
• Anya v University of Oxford
• Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
• Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal

Cited Statute

• Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
• Equality Act 2010

Judge Name

• H Craik
• Hodgson
• R Baber

Passage Text

• 7.165 The claim of harassment fails.
• 7.87 The claimant fails to prove that the treatment occurred. She was not treated in a way which was insulting. She was not reprimanded.
• 7.67 This allegation is put as one of harassment. There are no facts from which we could conclude that the purpose was to harass. There is no fact from which we could conclude it was his purpose to harass. The conduct was unwanted, but we don't accept that Mr Marston could have known that.