Engagement manager loses constructive dismissal and whistleblowing claims against NHS board
A manager with nine years' service failed to prove he was constructively dismissed or discriminated against after resigning from NHS Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board. The tribunal dismissed all claims including disability discrimination, harassment, and whistleblowing detriment.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant commenced employment on 1 August 2012 as an Engagement and Involvement Manager.
- The claimant has dyslexia, which the respondent conceded as a disability.
- The claimant raised a grievance about his line manager Ms Austin in November 2018.
- The claimant resigned on 27 April 2021 after securing a new job at Liverpool Women's Hospital.
- The claimant's whistleblowing disclosure on 1 February 2021 was not found to be a qualifying disclosure.
- All claims of discrimination, harassment, victimisation, whistleblowing detriment, and constructive dismissal were dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started working for the respondent as an Engagement and Involvement Manager.
-
New line manager
Ms Austin became the claimant's line manager.
-
Sick leave started
The claimant went on sick leave due to stress and perceived bullying.
-
Grievance raised
The claimant raised a grievance about Ms Austin.
-
Return to work
The claimant returned to work with a reduced workload and extended deadlines.
-
Performance action plan
Ms Austin placed the claimant on a performance action plan due to insufficient improvement.
-
Conversation with Dr Davies
The claimant and Dr Davies discussed right-wing theories about the origin of coronavirus.
-
Meeting with Ms Thompson
Ms Thompson chaired a meeting debunking myths about coronavirus and Chinese food.
-
Social media complaint
A complaint was made about the claimant's social media postings.
-
Whistleblowing disclosure
The claimant sent an email with an attachment alleging misconduct by senior staff.
-
Resignation
The claimant resigned, having secured a new job at Liverpool Women's Hospital.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant's dyslexia, indirectly discriminated, harassed him related to race, victimised him for raising a grievance, subjected him to detriment for whistleblowing, and constructively dismissed him.
The outcome
The tribunal found in favour of the respondent on all claims.
- The claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed because the respondent had taken steps such as reducing workload and extending deadlines, and the claimant did not identify any specific provision, criterion or practice that put him at a substantial disadvantage.
- The harassment related to race claim failed as the conduct complained of (discussions about coronavirus theories and a meeting debunking myths) was not related to race and did not have the purpose or effect of violating dignity.
- The whistleblowing claim failed because the disclosure on 1 February 2021 was not a qualifying disclosure – it did not tend to show a breach of a legal obligation or other prescribed matter.
- The constructive dismissal claim failed because the claimant resigned after securing another job, and the alleged final act (the whistleblowing detriment) was not a breach of contract that entitled him to resign.
- No compensation was awarded as all claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- For a constructive dismissal claim, you must show that your employer's conduct was a fundamental breach of contract that caused you to resign – resigning after finding another job weakens the claim.
- Whistleblowing disclosures must meet the legal definition of a 'qualifying disclosure' – they must reasonably tend to show a breach of a legal obligation, danger to health and safety, or other specified matters.
- Employers who make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees, such as reduced workload and extended deadlines, are likely to satisfy their duty if the adjustments are effective.
- Conversations about controversial topics at work are not automatically harassment unless they are related to a protected characteristic and have the purpose or effect of violating dignity.
- Tribunals will consider whether the employee has identified a specific provision, criterion or practice that puts them at a substantial disadvantage when assessing reasonable adjustment claims.
A manager's resignation and the claims that followed
An Engagement and Involvement Manager with nine years' service resigned from NHS Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board after securing a new job at Liverpool Women's Hospital. He then brought a wide-ranging claim alleging constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, harassment related to race, victimisation, and whistleblowing detriment. The tribunal dismissed every claim.
The case shows the high bar for constructive dismissal claims. The manager argued that a series of actions by his line manager and the organisation forced him to resign. However, the tribunal found that the final act he relied on – a whistleblowing disclosure he made in February 2021 – did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract. Crucially, he had already secured alternative employment before resigning, which undermined his argument that he had no choice but to leave.
What the tribunal decided on discrimination and whistleblowing
The tribunal also rejected the disability discrimination claims. The respondent had conceded that the manager's dyslexia was a disability, but the tribunal found that the adjustments made – a reduced workload and extended deadlines – were reasonable. The manager did not identify any specific provision, criterion or practice that put him at a substantial disadvantage.
The harassment claim related to a conversation about right-wing theories on the origin of coronavirus and a meeting debunking myths about Chinese food. The tribunal held that this conduct was not related to race and did not have the purpose or effect of violating the manager's dignity.
On whistleblowing, the tribunal found that the disclosure in February 2021 did not meet the legal test of a 'qualifying disclosure'. The email and attachment alleged misconduct by senior staff, but the tribunal concluded it did not reasonably tend to show a breach of a legal obligation or other prescribed matter.
Why this case matters
This case is a reminder that bringing multiple discrimination and whistleblowing claims requires solid evidence and a clear legal basis. Employees considering resigning and claiming constructive dismissal should be aware that securing another job first can weaken their case. For employers, the case shows that making reasonable adjustments and properly investigating grievances can successfully defend against wide-ranging claims.
Similar cases
Security officer dismissed after back injury: tribunal finds unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A security officer with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a back injury. The tribunal also found that CIS Security Ltd failed to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated against him arising from his disability.
HR Business Partner's disability and whistleblowing claims allowed to proceed despite strike-out bid
A tribunal has refused an employer's attempt to strike out claims of disability discrimination and victimisation brought by an autistic HR Business Partner who was dismissed after raising concerns about missing right-to-work documents.
Field assessor with hypertension wins victimisation claim after raising COVID safety concerns
A field assessor with 10 years' service who raised concerns about returning to work during the pandemic has won a victimisation claim against Vibrant Energy Matters Ltd. The tribunal found the company failed to properly handle her second grievance.
Two employees win unfair dismissal and discrimination claims against Ibco Limited
A tribunal upheld claims of unfair dismissal, indirect race discrimination, and victimisation for one former employee, and unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments for another. Damages of £31,752 were awarded to the first claimant.