Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation worker becomes oldest person to win age discrimination case at 88

Eileen Jolly, of Tilehurst (pictured outside her employment tribunal in November 2018) has successfully sued her former employers, the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, for unfair dismissal on grounds of age and disability and breach of contract

An elderly hospital secretary has become the oldest person to win an age discrimination case at the age of 88. 

Eileen Jolly, of Tilehurst, has successfully sued her former employers, the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, for unfair dismissal on grounds of age and disability and breach of contract.

She was frogmarched out of her office at the Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading by security staff in late 2016 and sacked four months later over concerns about her ‘frailty’.

But the grandmother told her employment tribunal she had not taken a sick day in 10 years, despite suffering a heart attack at work when she had to be resuscitated by a surgeon.

The pensioner, who has a heart condition and walks with a stick, claimed she planned to work until she was at least 90.

She said she was forced to lie to friends out of embarrassment, telling them she had ‘retired’ as opposed to being sacked.  

During her hearing, she told of how she was particularly hurt by one colleague who she quoted as saying: ‘It was always a concern that you could walk in and find Eileen dead on the floor.’

The medical secretary will have to wait until October to find out how much she will receive in compensation. 

Speaking from her Berkshire home today, she said: ‘I have not read the judgment yet. I am seeing my solicitor either this week or next week.’

The tribunal heard that after she was escorted out of the hospital by security staff in September 2016 she was prescribed antidepressants and felt too ashamed to tell anyone what had happened, saying instead that she had ‘retired.’

Her husband died two weeks before the tribunal hearing began in November without knowing what happened.

She was told to collect her things and leave and overheard a colleague saying: ‘Eileen won’t be coming back.’

Mrs Jolly is pictured with former Health Secretary Frank Dobson and orthopedic surgeon Dr James Scott in June 1998 at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital 

Mrs Jolly is pictured with former Health Secretary Frank Dobson and orthopedic surgeon Dr James Scott in June 1998 at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital 

The medical secretary, who suffers from arthritis and a heart condition, was accused of allowing patients that needed breast surgery to wait more than 52-weeks for treatment.

Mrs Jolly, who worked for the hospital trust from 1991 to her dismissal in 2017, was blamed for not uploading details of women awaiting non-urgent breast reconstruction surgery to a new database. 

The error was partially blamed for 14 women having to wait more than a year for surgery, putting the hospital trust at risk of a Government fine.

But an employment judge ruled Mrs Jolly and her managers had different ideas about what her role entailed – and the trust failed to train her in how to manage patient waiting lists.

The tribunal heard Mrs Jolly first started working for consultant Brendan Smith in 2005.

Her work was described by Dr Smith as ‘reliable and meticulous’ and that she held a list of patients waiting for non-urgent surgery but it was managed by someone else.

The Directorate Manager for Abdominal Surgery, who was not named in the hearing, was said to be responsible for informing Dr Smith when patients had been waiting 52-weeks since their initial referral.

Dr Smith would then move any patients reaching that limit onto the patient waiting list, the employment court heard.

Mrs Jolly worked at the Royal Berkshire Hospital near Reading until she was sacked in 2017 

Mrs Jolly worked at the Royal Berkshire Hospital near Reading until she was sacked in 2017 

When the director left in 2015, the Trust is said to have redesigned its administration system and Mrs Jolly’s role changed from medical secretary to a patient pathway co-ordinator.

But a training session had to be re-scheduled after the trainer could not tell the class ‘how patients go from one part of the system to another’. 

The hearing heard this was not re-scheduled and never took place.

Employment judge Andrew Gumbiti-Zimuto said: ‘The claimant did not understand her role the way that her managers understood her role.

‘The role that the claimant understood she was performing, she was performing competently.

‘There is a suspicion of the claimant being a scapegoat, the claimant was not offered training where it might be considered appropriate.

‘There was evidence of the claimant’s training having been inadequate, incomplete and ‘on the job’ training was ad hoc and not directed.’

The tribunal heard that on September 8, 2016, Mrs Jolly went into work and was approached by a colleague who told her to see the Director of Operations.

The Employment Judge said: ‘The claimant was told that she was being investigated.

‘The claimant describes the way this happened as humiliating, she describes feeling degraded and she recalls a colleague saying: ‘Eileen won’t be coming back.’

‘The claimant was escorted off the premises and accompanied by a colleague while she waited for a taxi.

‘The claimant describes how she felt that she was being escorted from premises in case she did something she should not. She described the incident as ‘awful’.’

In a letter later that month, Mrs Jolly was told there had been three serious incidents in two years in relation to breaching the 52-week limit on the waiting lists.

Mrs Jolly told the tribunal she felt depressed, ashamed and couldn’t sleep.

She told friends and relatives that she had retired so that she did not have to ‘re-live the whole dreadful experience’.

She was then asked to re-arrange a doctors appointment to come in for an interview, the tribunal heard, which the employment judge ruled was disability discrimination.

During the investigation into her conduct, the tribunal ruled that ‘discriminatory and inappropriate’ comments were made about Mrs Jolly – including about her age and ability to walk the length of the building.

It was also noted she was ‘frail’ because of her arthritis and heart conditions which the tribunal ruled were ‘hurtful’ to the 87-year-old.

Manager Michael Eastwell who carried out the investigation was found to be ‘unreasonable’ in his treatment of Mrs Jolly because he was ‘tainted with considerations about the claimant’s age and also about the claimant’s disability’.

Employment judge Gumbiti-Zimuto said: ‘Mr Eastwell took into account the comments by colleagues which included comments about the claimant’s frailty.

‘The comments made were inappropriate, hurtful and related to the claimant’s age and perceived frailty because of her age and disability.

‘When the Claimant read these comments, she considered them hurtful and saw that they were aimed at her age and her health as well as perceptions of her age and health.

‘The nature of the comments once communicated to the Claimant, as they were in the course of the investigation, violated the Claimant’s dignity in relation to her age and disability and created a hostile and intimidating environment for her.’

The tribunal ruled that there was a ‘symbiosis’ between Mrs Jolly’s age, disability and the way in which she was treated by the NHS Trust.

A remedy hearing is due to take place in October.

Read more at DailyMail.co.uk