The claimant was employed by the respondent as a fertility practitioner from June 2017 until February 2019. She was based at a clinic on the Lisburn Road, Belfast. The respondent detailed that there were difficulties faced with the claimant from the beginning of her employment largely centring upon how she interacted with other staff members and clients.

In February 2018, the claimant was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. She took sick leave from February to April 2018. On her return she worked reduced hours and was assured she could take breaks when required. Following her return the issues relating to how she interacted with others continued and she received verbal and written warnings from Ruth Ellen Logan. There were subsequent allegations made by the claimant including being called ‘wiggy’ by Ruth Ellen Logan, yet it was held by the Tribunal that the claimant herself used this term in a joking manner.

In January 2019, a meeting was held with the claimant regarding a complaint made by a client’s husband. This related to giving out other client’s information which the claimant denied. The respondent made it clear that negative social media reviews could be very damaging to the clinic. The claimant had put forward several times in her evidence that the respondent was exploiting vulnerable women but the Tribunal felt that there was no satisfactory evidence to substantiate those allegations.

The Tribunal accepted the argument that the blood test slips from the Royal Victoria Hospital were ‘generic’ and labelled everyone as a ‘dr’ including Ms Logan. The claimant also made accusations about the involvement of Dr Barnish in prescribing drips through a franchise arrangement. The Tribunal again stated that there was no issue with his name appearing on the company website or paperwork. It also found that the claimant did not raise these issues during her employment.

The dismissal occurred following an incident on 1st February 2019 where the claimant’s key was found in the front door. The respondent stated it would leave the company vulnerable to theft and that their insurance would not cover any loss if that were the case. She had a disciplinary meeting with Mr Rutherford, the clinic director. The claimant admitted that this was the case and that she had been ‘distracted’. The Tribunal followed the principles set out in Rogan and outlined that the dismissal was fair in all of the circumstances. On the issue of the disability discrimination action, it was found that it was out of time. Regardless of that the Tribunal found that the claimant was not treated less favourably and there were reasonable adjustments made as a result of her disability. As a result, the claimant’s case was dismissed.

Practical Lessons

Many of the issues that were explored in this case have subsequently been explored in a BBC Spotlight Documentary focusing on the practices of Logan Wellbeing. This largely related to the public interest disclosures as alleged by the claimant yet relating to Ms Logan posing as a doctor and the involvement of Dr Barnish. However, those points did not go far in this case because they were never raised during her employment. The unfair dismissal point demonstrates the need to keep records of warnings.