Former GPCE chairman is given the right to bring an employment claim against the BMA

Exclusive A claim against the BMA for discrimination will now be brought after a former chair of the GP committee, who was dismissed while on maternity leave, won her case at a preliminary hearing.

Dr. Farah Jameel was voted out as chair by the GPCE while she was on maternity leave in 2023, and has initiated legal action against the BMA, arguing that her subsequent removal was discriminatory.

A preliminary hearing was held in September to determine whether Dr Jameel could be classified as an ’employee’, which was necessary to pursue most of her claims against the BMA.

Pulse can now reveal that an employment judge ruled in favor of Dr. Jameel ruled and found that she was ‘both an office holder and an employee’ of the BMA under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010.

This means her full discrimination claim against the BMA can go ahead, with the hearing starting on February 3 and lasting fortnight.

Pulse reported last month that the BMA has been accused of ‘direct discrimination (on the grounds of pregnancy and maternity); victimization (sex); unfair dismissal; and wrongful dismissal’.

Last summer the GPCE has passed a vote of no confidence against Dr. Jameel acceptedwho was elected the first female chair of GPs in England in 2021. She was previously temporarily suspended in November 2022 following complaints from BMA staff.

GPs on the committee voted in favor of a motion in which they said they were ‘deeply concerned about the lack of clarity surrounding the status of the alleged suspension’ of Dr Jameel.

The lawyers of Dr. Jameel have argued that the BMA’s decision to implement the committee’s vote resulted in her being ‘wrongfully dismissed’ because the union ‘did not have a fair reason for dismissal’.

At the time of her removal, the BMA told Pulse that this was the case was ‘satisfied’ that no legal obligations had been breacheddespite the fact that the vote of no confidence was an ‘exceptional situation’ for the GPCE.

Dr.’s lawyer Jameel, Spencer Wood, who is a partner at Oh Parsonstold Pulse that the decision from the preliminary hearing is “very important” and means that a “major hurdle” of the case has been cleared.

“It’s an important first step and we’re happy to be over it,” he added.

Unite the Union is supporting Dr Jameel’s case by funding her legal costs and instructing her legal team.

The preliminary hearing judgment, delivered by Employment Judge Joffe early this week, said: ‘The claimant was at the time an employee of the defendant within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

‘The claimant was at the time an employee of the defendant within the meaning of section 83 of the Equality Act 2010.’

The document, seen by Pulse, says Judge Joffe “carefully considered the issue of control,” which is a common law test for determining whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor.

She said there were “significant features” which indicated the BMA had “control” over Dr Jameel, such as a “requirement as to the number of hours the claimant was required to work”.

Judge Joffe also cited Dr Jameel’s treatment ‘in relation to her sick leave’ as her referral to occupational health services and advice meant the BMA ‘effectively controlled the conditions under which she could return to work’.

In her closing remarks, the judge said: “Having all this in mind, I concluded that the correct analysis of the relationship was that the claimant was both an office holder and an employee of the defendant, looking at the test under the Employment Rights Act. Act 1996 and those under the Equality Act 2010.

“The label ‘contractor’ attempted to impose on the respondent to change the nature of the relationship, but it did not change the reality of the situation.”

In response, the BMA said: ‘We are surprised that the tribunal has reached this finding on employment status as this was an elected position and Dr Jameel was removed from her position as a result of a vote of no confidence by the GPCE.

‘We will now take the time to carefully investigate the findings.’

At the time of the no-confidence vote, Dr. Jameel’s suspension hearings had not yet taken place due to her ongoing maternity leave, which began around the same time as her suspension in late 2022.

GPC equality leader and mover of the motion, Dr Rachel Ali, said it was not “caused by the actions of any individual”, but rather “to give the committee an opportunity to provide a clear democratic mandate to the leadership of the profession and to put an end to the uncertainty of recent months’.

As an equality leader, she sought to reassure members that this was the “only fair way forward.”

While the vote passed, many criticized the committee’s decision hundreds sign a petition calling for the vote to be withdrawn on the basis of ‘unfair’ treatment of Dr Jameel.

However, elections went ahead for a new chairman Dr. Katie Bramall-Stainer will take up this position in August.

October Pulse survey

Take our September 2024 survey and potentially win £200 worth of tokens