You don't need to be signed in to read BMJ Group Blogs, but you can register here to receive updates about other BMJ Group products and services via our Group site.

Chris Cox: Eva Michalak wins £4.5 million over discrimination

19 Dec, 11 | by BMJ Group

Expressions of disbelief in some newspapers about the size of the award of compensation for Dr Eva Michalak, who will apparently receive almost £4.5 million from the Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust following her successful employment tribunal case, are rarely combined with equivalent expressions of outrage at the way in which she was treated by senior staff at the Trust. In fact, the assessment of compensation for unlawful discrimination by a tribunal is strictly defined by statute and the courts, and merely reflects the actual financial losses suffered by the victim, combined with recompense for the serious psychological harm caused to her, and a limited payment for what is called “injury to feelings” (which must be proved). In this case, the bulk of the award is for loss of earnings and pension, given the medical evidence of the impact of the discrimination on Dr Michalak future working life.

What may also come as a surprise to some readers is the fact that the individual employees responsible for the discriminatory behaviour are personally liable under the equality legislation for satisfying the award in Dr Michalak’s favour, having joint and several liability with the Trust. This has always been the case, but is nevertheless a welcome reminder to all staff working in the health service that if you harass, bully or otherwise treat to their detriment fellow employees on the proscribed grounds, then you may face a very hefty financial bill for your actions, as well as potentially disciplinary action by your employer and even by your professional regulatory body.
The diversion of badly needed public funds from patient care to compensate the victims of discrimination for the unlawful actions of your staff (and remember, there is no mention in the press reports of the legal costs incurred by the Trust in defending this action), is obviously to be regretted. Yet, employers only have themselves to blame. Too often equal opportunities policies are filed away in HR office cabinets (or nowadays on organisational websites), with little evidence of robust implementation throughout the organisation, involving every member of staff from the Executive Board downwards.

On 6 April 2011 the Equality Act came into force drawing together all of the public sector duties previously found in the separate pieces of equality legislation, into one single equality duty in respect of the protected characteristics of age, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. Key elements of that duty include the elimination of discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and the advancement of equality of opportunity, not only in relation to the organisation’s employment practices, but also how it delivers it services to the public. Employers in the public sector must clearly do more to address the attitudes and behaviours of some staff, which have no place in the contemporary workplace.

Chris Cox is Director of Legal Services, Royal College of Nursing.

By submitting your comment you agree to adhere to these terms and conditions
  • Dr Fred Kavalier

    I agree with what you say, but I'm not sure that your figures are correct.  According to the Daily Telegraph “She was awarded £1.1 million in loss of earnings, £660,000 in pension losses
    and £100,000 for medical costs as well as damages for injury to feeling and
    psychiatric injury. Exemplary damages were also awarded against the trust.”  If this is correct, the bulk of the award is not for loss of earnings and pension.  Will the individual employees responsible for the discriminatory behaviour be required to pay the award?  I doubt it – the NHS will probably indemnify them and pick of the bill.  It's a sad and cautionary tale, and a very expensive one for the NHS.

  • Chris Cox

    The loss of earnings
    and pension loss are grossed up to take account of tax that will be payable,
    which accounts for more than £2 million. Hence most of the award is technically
    for loss of earnings and pension loss including tax.   Non-taxable loss amounted to around £260,000.

  • Nick Hanning, RWPS LAw

    Chris is correct that in fact the largest element of the award was actually tax which Dr Michalak will be handing back to the Treasury, albeit via HMRC.

    The Trust confirmed at the hearing that none of the individuals would be paying anything. Even if an individual award had been made against any of them, the Trust would have paid that too.

  • PF

    There is no mention of the BMA in the judgment. Eva Michalak was represented by her husband. Why did the BMA not help. I would have thought that was what we pay our union dues for.

  • Hvdb

    Surely the payment by the Trust and the cost to the Trust of the defence of the three managers guilty of illegal discrimination should be seen as a benefit in kind by HMRC to them and they should pay tax accordingly. Who'se responsibility is it to inform HMRC, the Trust on the P11D or the individuals ?

  • Louise Freeman

    LJF
    Dr Michalak was a BMA member and was represented in the trust disciplinary process by a BMA official.  I suspect that her Employment Tribunal claim failed the BMA merits assessment which takes place prior to the BMA agreeing to pick up the bill for legal representation in the ET.  This seems similar to another high profile case Awotona v. South Tyneside 2002 in which a doctor was forced to meet their own costs for legal representation despite being a BMA member and having a case which they eventually overwhelmingly won.
    From the 2 high profile cases – Michalak & Awotona – it seems at least possible that the merits assessment standard is set too high and members are at risk of being deserted by the BMA at the point at which they most need support. As a BMA member, I would therefore be very interested to find out how many claims are put forward annually for merits assessment by the BMA, the proportion accepted, the proportion won and the amounts awarded by the ET system.

  • Dr Anil Jain

    Many thanks Chris.

    Do you think the BMA is going to learn any lessons from this high profile case? They have subcontracted legal assessment which unfortunately is mostly undertaken by assitant/ trainee solicitors based on papers submitted by BMA IROs and Employment Advisors! No wonder so many cases fail merit assessment as due diligence is not applied.

    It is clear from Dr Michalak's and other cases that the BMA is failing doctors whose cases are complex begin with as highlighted by Dr Michalak's case. She had lost her career and job and would have lost chance of looking after herself rest of her life if her husband has not fought her her case. The BMA should be held accountable otherwise other doctors will lose their livelihood!

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
BMJ blogs homepage

BMJ.com

Helping doctors make better decisions. Visit site



Creative Comms logo

Latest from BMJ.com

Latest from BMJ.com

Latest from BMJ.com podcasts

Latest from BMJ.com podcasts

Blogs linking here

Blogs linking here