An employment tribunal judge issued a decisive ruling in favor of a woman who was fired from her position at an ambulance trust after her wife assaulted their boss. The judge succinctly summarized the case in two words while delivering the verdict.
Stacey Smith, a former employee at the North West Ambulance Service (NWAS), was convicted in October 2024 for attempting to murder her and her wife Paula Smith’s supervisor, Michala Morton, in November of the previous year over a scheduling disagreement. Stacey received a 25-year prison sentence for launching a violent hammer attack on Ms. Morton.
Following an investigation, it was determined that Paula had been unfairly treated by her employers when she was dismissed due to her relationship with her wife. Paula was initially arrested on suspicion of harassment and making threats against the manager, but authorities later decided not to pursue further action. She was informed via email from Greater Manchester Police that her bail conditions had been lifted.
During the tribunal proceedings, it was revealed that Paula, who has since separated from Stacey, had no prior knowledge of the attack and only became aware of the incident after her arrest. Despite this, she was terminated from her job three weeks after the police ceased their investigation.
Paula received a dismissal notice dated April 25, 2024, shortly after a hearing on April 19, where she was notified of her termination. The trust cited her association with someone facing charges of attempted murder as the reason for her dismissal.
In a recent judgment, it was determined that Paula, then 56 years old, was unfairly fired, and she is set to receive a £14,000 payout following the ruling. Employment Judge Paul Holmes emphasized that Paula’s only involvement was being married to Stacey Smith and questioned the significance of her arrest in relation to her employment status.
Judge Holmes highlighted that the focus on Paula’s arrest and bail conditions by the trust was unwarranted, as these events did not receive public attention. He concluded that the public and patients were unlikely to make any connection between Paula’s personal life and any potential risk posed by her employment.
The tribunal’s decision underscored that the trust’s emphasis on Paula’s arrest was disproportionate, as it did not impact her ability to carry out her job responsibilities.