Consultant obstetrician dismissed for clinical competence: whistleblowing and race claims rejected
An employment tribunal has dismissed all claims by a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist who argued she was unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing and race discrimination, upholding the NHS trust's decision to dismiss her on capability grounds after a coroner found her account of a baby's death unreliable.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #whistleblowing
- #race-discrimination
- #protected-disclosure
- #capability-dismissal
- #independent-investigation
- #coroner-inquest
- #clinical-competence
Key facts
- Dr Gentry was employed as a Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist from 16 May 2011 until her dismissal on 27 May 2020.
- She made protected disclosures in January 2017 (alleging racism by Dr van der Watt) and May 2017 (concerning Dr Coker's patient care).
- An external investigator, Dr Quinn, conducted a thorough investigation into multiple clinical incidents and found a pattern of poor decision-making and lack of insight.
- The disciplinary panel found that Dr Gentry's clinical practice fell substantially short of expected standards and posed a real risk to patient safety.
- The Coroner's inquest into the death of baby JP concluded that Dr Gentry's account of events was not credible and that a missed opportunity for a caesarean section led to the baby's death.
- The Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims of whistleblowing detriment, automatic unfair dismissal, race discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Dr Gentry started work as a Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist at West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust.
-
Protected disclosure to Dr van der Watt
Dr Gentry accused Dr van der Watt of racism and targeting black and brown doctors for disciplinary action.
-
Protected disclosure to Dr Barlow
Dr Gentry reported that Dr Coker's behaviour had endangered a patient's health.
-
Incident with patient LP
Dr Gentry saw patient LP, who later went home and returned for a caesarean section; the baby died. The Coroner later found Dr Gentry's account unreliable.
-
External investigation announced
Dr van der Watt informed Dr Gentry that an external investigator, Dr Quinn, would review her practice following concerns.
-
Exclusion from work
Dr Gentry was excluded from work due to concerns about probity and potential interference with the investigation.
-
Dr Quinn's final report
Dr Quinn's report identified a pattern of poor clinical decision-making, lack of reflection, and false claims by Dr Gentry.
-
Capability hearing commenced in Dr Gentry's absence
The disciplinary panel proceeded to hear the management case despite Dr Gentry's absence, citing multiple postponements and occupational health advice.
-
Dismissal
Dr Gentry was dismissed by reason of capability, with the panel noting concerns about probity and dishonesty.
-
Employment Tribunal judgment
The Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the reason for dismissal was capability, not protected disclosures or race.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the consultant was dismissed because of protected disclosures (whistleblowing) or race, or whether the dismissal was for capability and fair. It also considered whether she suffered detriment for protected acts or race discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims of whistleblowing detriment, automatic unfair dismissal, race discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
The key reason was that the trust had conducted a thorough external investigation into multiple clinical incidents, which identified a pattern of poor decision-making and lack of insight. The disciplinary panel, which included independent experts, found that the consultant's clinical practice fell substantially short of expected standards and posed a real risk to patient safety. A coroner's inquest into the death of a baby concluded that the consultant's account was not credible and that a missed opportunity for a caesarean section led to the death.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A thorough, independent investigation into clinical concerns can provide a strong basis for a capability dismissal, even if the employee has made protected disclosures.
- Tribunals will scrutinise the timing of dismissals in whistleblowing cases, but a significant gap between the disclosure and dismissal can weaken the causal link.
- Employers should ensure disciplinary panels include independent members with relevant expertise to demonstrate fairness.
- Coroner's findings that undermine an employee's credibility can be powerful evidence in capability proceedings.
A case of clinical competence over whistleblowing
This case shows how an NHS trust successfully defended a capability dismissal against a consultant who had made protected disclosures about racism and patient safety. The tribunal found that the trust's decision was driven by genuine concerns about clinical competence, not retaliation for whistleblowing.
The consultant had raised concerns about a colleague's conduct in 2017, but the trust subsequently investigated her own practice following multiple clinical incidents. An external investigator found a pattern of poor decision-making and lack of insight, and a coroner later ruled that the consultant's account of a baby's death was not credible.
What the trust did right
The trust commissioned an independent external investigation, which was thorough and considered all relevant evidence. The disciplinary panel included an independent expert from another organisation and two of the consultant's peers, ensuring impartiality. The panel gave the consultant multiple opportunities to engage, but she did not attend the final hearing. The trust also obtained occupational health advice before proceeding.
Why this matters
This case reinforces that employers can dismiss for capability if they have a genuine belief, based on reasonable grounds and after a reasonable investigation, that the employee is not competent. It also shows that protected disclosures do not automatically protect an employee from dismissal if there is a separate, genuine reason for the decision. For employees in clinical roles, the threshold for capability can be high, especially where patient safety is at risk.
Similar cases
Audit Assistant Manager loses constructive dismissal and race discrimination claim against Grant Thornton
An Audit Assistant Manager with 2 years' service who resigned after being placed on a performance improvement plan has lost his claims of constructive unfair dismissal, race discrimination and whistleblowing detriment. The tribunal found the employer had reasonable cause for its actions.
Whistleblowing claims dismissed: council's breakdown of trust was genuine
A Community Development Manager who claimed she was dismissed for whistleblowing lost her case. The tribunal found the council's decision was due to an irretrievable breakdown in working relationships, not her protected disclosures.
HR Business Partner dismissed after one month for whistleblowing: £74,540 awarded
An HR Business Partner who raised concerns about a flawed redundancy process was dismissed after just one month. The tribunal awarded £74,540 after striking out the employer's response.
Dismissed for using visitor parking permits: a flawed process that cost the council £35,000
A deputy manager with 16 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct over visitor parking permits. The tribunal found the process unfair and awarded £35,318.56, but rejected her whistleblowing claim.