To think this is way too much compensation

[xyfactor]

How can this amount be justified?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-16224062

xyfactor - she got compensated for her loss of earnings. That was calculated by the tribunal.

That calculated figure is based on her expected future earnings minus a sum that assumes she will be able to get another job. There are strict guidelines for doing the calculation. Everyone focuses on the big sum of money - not what has actually been lost - yet does not begrudge a lotter winner.

A soldier who loses their legs can work again. They are compensated for the pain and distress of their injury plus any sums needed to modify their home pay for care etc. The soldier who lost her job as a driver received a low sum because there were extenuatiing circumstances that meant she would not have been suited to her chosen job as a driver and so she lost very little of her earnings.

You think this is fair ninkynonker?

"Ms Rayment's counsel, Andrew Hogarth QC, said that the MoD had waited two and a half years before making an offer and Ms Rayment had established that she had been harassed, although she had lost her case on the amount of damages."

Reading that suggests that she wasn't worth a decent payout.

As I said earlier she's got 4.4 million reasons not to go back to work now.

The tooting popular front politics is far removed from an issue like this.

I didn't say it was fair, I said it was a totally different case all over again.

MoreBeta

This doctor was on £90,000 a year.

Say the tribunal gave her 20 years money to compensate?

How the hell did she get over 2.5 million on top of that?

The judgement is here ; tribunal judgement

It's clear from the judgement that some of the compensation will be paid by individuals who bullied her. It is also clear that she can never work as a doctor again, she sounds very mentally unwell, suicidal ideation etc

It is also worth pointing out that her husband represented her up to the remedy hearing as he had been forced to give up work to care for her and their son as she was to unwell to be left alone.

There's a lot of supposition on this thread and some downright bloody chippiness as well. This woman's mental well being has been destroyed she has had multiple hospital admissions and she will never work again, her husband was also forced to give up a career he loved to support her. I think they as a family deserve the lot.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the article that you linked about the soldier seems to imply that her mental health issues were exacerbated for a short period of time, though I don't doubt that even that was distressing. She was also offered a larger settlement but declined. It looks like she was offered £185,000 but decided to go to court. from the article, it doesn't appear that she was bullied in the same way, with people having secret meetings with both racist nd sexist overtones.

The dr suffered horrendous bullying, and seems to have long lasting mental health problems. So much so that her husband has had to quit his job in order to be her full time carer. So the trust, rightly, should compensate for the loss their combined potential earnings as well as the compensation for injuries sustained.

xyfactor, you seem to really want to turn this into a class war, as if you have this idea of this woman and her husband chuckling in their house throwing notes in the air. Instead, a woman's life is ruined, with severe mental health problems. No longer able to look after her son and relying on her husband to care for her. I hardly think that she's living the life of riley.

While I don't think the dinner lady's case is the same at all, I do think there is an important point to be made about people who're earning less.

If you look at someone who is doing a minimum wage job, and they're treated so badly they can't work again (as this doctor was), it must be absolutely crushing to get compensation based on the assumption they would have worked their whole lives in the same minimum wage job.

I'm not saying I know any other way to calculate it, but it must be so, so crushing.

I agree. It is crushing when assumptions are made. But they have to work on probabilities. Or everyone would be saying well, I might have retrained as a rocket scientist.

I mentioned up thread about my son and about loss of future earnings. They told me that they calculate likely earnings/profession in a child based on the jobs their parents do. Well, he has autism and they tried to suggest that because he had autism, he'd probably never have worked anyway.

I hit the roof. My reply was that he was entitled to more, not less. Because of his autism he was likely to do manual work - trolley collecting or something (I know, but I needed something to make my point!) and because of what she did to him - she had cut off his only realistic option in life for earning his own living.

I won that argument.

My point - yes. It pisses you right off, but there has to be a way of working it out in a realistic way.

Good for you for winning that argument!

I agree there has to be a way to work it out. And obviously in this case, the answer is to get rid of a culture where people feel they can get away with acting like this.

I can't believe the way some of you are reacting to this story.

Of course loss of earning compensation looks at the job you don't actually do. You don't compensate a bus driver with the salary of a top city lawyer or vice versa.

This formula is used throughout the court system so if you have a road traffic accident and get compensation then a highly paid professional e.g. accountant will get paid more money than a lower paid clerk in the finance section who has sustained the same injury. However a manual worker eg. builders mate may get more compensation as a physical injury may delay their return to work for longer than an accountant who tends to sit a a desk all day.

If any of you can be bothered the court transcript is here:
www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/reserved-remedy-tribunal-decision.pdf

I read about this case and actually thought people on Mumnset would be pleased as it is recognition that discrimination over mat. leave has long and significant consequences for families. More fool me. Yet another excuse for the class politics / failure to accept the realities of life - if you earn more you have more. If you want more get a job that pays better.

Most are agreeing with you Lurker.

Just read this in the judgement; We then have to carry out a calculation which produces a sum of money which, after payment of tax, will produce that figure. It is many years since this Tribunal studied mathematical equations. We are indebted, once again, to the Claimant?s representatives for the methodology attached to the schedule of loss to show how that grossed up figure should be calculated. We have to admit that we do not understand it but we accept that it works. We attach hereto a copy of our grossing up calculation (see p43). As it will be seen we calculate that in order to provide the Claimant with a sum of £2,103,262.31 she needs to receive £4,161,564.60.

So she won't get £4million she'll get £2million

See, I've actually read the judgment in this case and it is a horrendous situation. As said above, the medical evidence is that she will never work in her professional capacity again. Her husband has had to give up work. She's lost a final salary pension scheme - that alone accounts for a huge figure. She was awarded £56,000 for injury to feelings - which is at the top of the scale which can be awarded for discrimination claims (which shows how bad her treatment was) but is the only part of the award not directly attributable to HER financial loss as a result of the way they treated her. Finally - over £2m of this is purely grossing up for tax, so that she is in the same position as she would have been had she been able to continue working.

Whoops - just seen the last few posts!

It's pure Daily Mail logic to say, 'Look at this soldier. They didn't get anywhere near that amount so why should she?'

Of course the people who say that are usually the same ones that begrudged the woman soldier any compensation at all when there are soldiers losing limbs ...

I'm here saying the soldier deserved to be compensated equally.
What a strange statement.
Your generalisations can only be described as epic.
There's a doctor on this thread who said quite clearly that this claim was over the top.

I suppose the calculation of the compensation for a wrecked career works in a similar way to if it had been a garment or a car that they had ruined: they'd have to pay more to compensate for a really expensive coat from a great fashion designer than for something you got from Primark- you could say that is unfair on the woman who can only afford the Primark coat, but it's still how it works.

She should only have been compensated equally if she had been affected equally.

From the two articles, it certainly doesn't look like that is the case. I'm ignoring the career earnings part, as we have already cleared that up.

xyfactor I think someone has already said upthread the soldier refused a settlement out of court that was more than the value of the claim. The tribunal penalises for that because essentially you have gambled on getting more (incorrectly and probably against legal advice - without prejudice negotiations are stripped back for costs discussions in court) and wasted court time in the process. Also the GP will be taxed on her settlement as if it were income - they may be carveouts for various heads of damage but anything regarded as income e.g. future loss of earnings is taxable.

I'm not really sure why the view of someone who's from the same profession as the subject of the OP is considered to have particular weight? There's very clearly a lot more to it than that, which the doctor upthread didn't seem to consider.

I thibk she was just making the point that more training and expense goes into becoming a doctor than does into becoming a dinner lady or driver in the army.

Claims are based on earnings.

The vast majority of people don't earn enough money to make a drawn out case worthwhile - the loss of earnings would be eaten up by legal fees. Or they realise that if they pursue the case they won't get another job in their industry - who wants to employ someone who's sued a previous employer.

You have to be determined to make a point or unlikely to ever work again at a high level to risk a tribunal.

Most successful cases never see a tribunal - they're settled away from the courts with a cheque and no admission of fault.

It is not comparing like with like to look at soldiers' lump sums (this is a regular irritant to me!)

The lump sum (which as a headline appears to compare badly) is only part of the total package under AFCS. There is also the GIP (guaranteed income) - for a civilian to buy an annuity which would yield an unexceptional GIP of say £25k per year, you'd need an award probably over £4m.

You could decide to give these soldiers higher lump sums and let them find their own deal from private sector companies, rather than having government-backed guaranteed income. It wouldn't be my choice, though.

This woman is suffering a 'life changing' mental illness which means she can't get another job and can't have the relationship with her family that she should have had. she will never be able to work again and it sounds like her husbands career has also been damaged

this case is about more than just losing her job

I have suffered some (very minor compared to this) bullying in the workplace and know how much that upset me. What this poor woman has gone through is unimaginably appalling.

My heart goes out to her and her family. I'm sure they would sooner have the lives they had planned for themselves than any amount of money.