I’ve read the full report - I cannot see how the trust could have been more supportive. It really sounds like the bent over backwards to accommodate this person. She was on a phased approach to even start the job, which is bonkers.
Some things that stood out to me - the ‘incidents’ (notes/overheard conversations) were only ever reported during conversations where the claimant was asked to increase their hours. There is no evidence that the first note even exists. And it was only mentioned when they were trying to get the claimant to increase the number of shifts to full time (shocking, I know, for a full time job).
Secondly the claimant clearly stated that the voices she overheard having the horrible conversation were ‘posh and english’ - then went on to accuse a colleague with a thick Philippine’s accent, despite there being literally no evidence.
She refused to sign written statements about the notes and conversations she had overheard - why?
She took another woman (who it is documented as being a supportive friend and colleague) to a private room and talked about taking her underwear off because she was hot and sweaty and gestured to ‘wringing it out’ - she was then inconsistent in her denial of this. Even though the claimant denied this happening, the tribunal found ‘’we have no doubt it was meant in a lighthearted way and not sexual in nature’’. How they came to that conclusion is not clear.
She had an incredibly high sickness record, including going off sick for a month after only being in post for a month. However when her pay was due to go to half pay, in line with AfC, was miraculously able to come back to work immediately. But apparently this month long absence being on her sickness record is transphobic? And being asked to attend meetings in line with the managing absence policy is transphobic?
Those are just the points that immediately stood out. Bespoke training was put in place before she started. She accepted a full time role, but refused to do full time hours, and this was accommodated. She was given compassionate leave. There were multiple meetings and investigations into the allegations of bullying, but as she provided literally no evidence whatsoever, no one could be disciplined for this. She had a loud, shouting tantrum in the middle of the canteen, and was not disciplined for this. She was supported to move departments and hospitals, and given buddies to work with.
I genuinely cannot see how someone could read the full report and not think that the trust went above and beyond for this person. I genuinely feel that a ‘cis’ woman (I know that many don’t like that word, but I’m really just using it to highlight the distinction here), would not have been treated with so much grace and understanding.