A dentist employed by the Government has missed out on almost £40,000 in compensation for unfair dismissal after “unreasonably” refusing a settlement offer.
But Erika Francioso was awarded £15,000 after an Employment Tribunal found that her dismissal in 2024 was unlawful discrimination.
She brought multiple claims against her employer, including allegations of disability and race discrimination.
However, the tribunal found only one breach: that her dismissal was influenced by delays in providing original sickness certificates, including periods when she was receiving treatment for asthma in Spain – something the tribunal described as “entirely reasonable”.
“It is not for an employer to dictate where an employee obtains treatment unless the employee’s choices unreasonably extend the period of sickness absence, which was not the case here,” the tribunal said.
It therefore concluded that Dr Francioso had been dismissed for something arising from her disability. All other discrimination claims – numbering around 30 – were rejected.
The tribunal also found that her dismissal was unfair, describing dismissal as a “wholly disproportionate” response to breaches of the Government’s Managing Attendance Policy.
“There was no period of unauthorised absence,” the judgment said. “Ms Francioso maintained reasonable contact with the respondent during her period of absence and the timeframe in which she provided original medical certificates was reasonable given she was sick and for a period being treated in Spain.”
Despite those findings, Dr Francioso ultimately received no compensation for unfair dismissal. Her award was reduced from £37,295 to zero after the tribunal found she had unreasonably refused a settlement offer for exactly that amount.
The judgment records that the States Employment Board made the offer twice, but Dr Francioso withdrew her acceptance because she wanted to pursue reinstatement – a claim the tribunal described as “hopeless” – and because she would not agree to the proposed confidentiality terms.
In assessing the evidence, the tribunal raised a number of concerns about Dr Francioso’s case.
It noted that she had secretly recorded several meetings with managers, but found that the recordings did not support her allegations and, in several instances, undermined them.
The tribunal also found that aspects of her evidence were exaggerated, including a claim that she had been “bedridden” at a time when she was, in fact, able to travel from Jersey to Spain for treatment.
One proposed witness statement, said to be from Dr Francioso’s mother, was excluded entirely after it emerged that the statement had been written by Dr Francioso herself. As a result, her mother was not permitted to give evidence.
Dr Francioso began work as a dental officer with Health on 1 January 2017.
In 2021, she was suspended for ten months following concerns raised by a colleague about patient care.
Although no misconduct was ultimately found, she was later placed under professional supervision following an investigation by the General Dental Council.
She did not return to clinical duties due to an ongoing dispute over responsibility for arranging that supervision.
Dr Francioso returned to work on 4 March 2024 and was dismissed with pay in lieu of notice later that month.