The BMA was ordered last week to pay £814877 ($1.2m; €1.3m) compensation to an Asian surgeon after the association refused repeated requests to assist him in race discrimination claims against the medical training authorities over recognition of his training.
The Manchester employment tribunal ruled that the BMA was itself guilty of indirect race discrimination in refusing to support race discrimination claims by its members against royal colleges, specialty advisory committees of royal colleges, postgraduate deans, or the specialist training authority. The tribunal cleared the association of direct discrimination in refusing to support Rajendra Chaudhary's claims. But the BMA was found guilty of victimisation—discriminating against him by refusing to reconsider supporting his claims once it learned that he was considering a race discrimination claim against the BMA.
The award includes £5000 aggravated damages—awarded in a small percentage of cases and only if a respondent's conduct has been “high handed, malicious, insulting, or oppressive.” The tribunal found the BMA had not behaved in a malicious, insulting, or oppressive manner, but its conduct was “high handed throughout” and amounted to “institutional denial.”
Mr Chaudhary, who came to the United Kingdom after qualifying in India, sought the BMA's help in bringing claims against the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS), the postgraduate dean for Wessex, the specialty advisory committee (SAC) for urology of the RCS, and the specialist training authority (STA).
He gained the FRCS in England and Scotland, and spent three and a half years as a registrar in urology in Manchester, moving to a locum senior registrar post. The post was said to be “royal college approved,” and in 1992 it appeared in an RCS list as providing “acceptable training.”
After obtaining settled status in the United Kingdom, he applied to the postgraduate dean to be admitted to the specialist registrar grade, the route to an NHS consultant's post. But he was told his Manchester post had not been approved by the SAC for urology and he would have to start training all over again.
The tribunal concluded that the BMA “refused to recognise the possibility that the royal colleges, the STA, postgraduate dean, or the SACs might discriminate on racial grounds.” Such claims were not “evaluated or considered in reality.” This might not have been a deliberate policy, but the result of an attitude of mind, the tribunal said.
Mr Chaudhary is currently unable to work owing to stress related psychiatric illness. The tribunal found that the BMA's discrimination “materially added to and exacerbated his existing stresses which altogether caused his illness.” He said he was pleased with the decision but that “no amount of compensation will bring back my lost career or reverse the suffering I have endured.”
The BMA said it was appealing against the ruling but in the meantime reviewing its procedures to ensure similar criticisms could not be levelled in the future. It believed the tribunal's finding that it actively pursued claims of race discrimination in appointment and promotion and reconfirmed its good faith in attempting to secure justice for ethnic minority members.