Re: Eva Carneiro fights back
Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 8:43 amAlso most constructive dismal cases don't happen on national television
Im_Spartacus wrote:Just to damp down some of the excitable comments made on the thread about Chelsea not wanting to go to court, I'd wager that they would. However for practical reasons it's very unlikely either side would want to see this case before an employment tribunal.
Constructive or unfair dismissal is notoriously difficult to prove in court. For the most part, employers even in cases they don't think they will lose, will settle just before the court date if the cost of lawyers fees is likely to be greater than the award (which it almost always is).
In this case, Eva Carneiro also appears to have bit the bullet very quickly after the incident which in my experience tells me several things which would fundamentally undermine the claim.
1: It seems highly unlikely that any attempt at reconciliation was made before she walked. Normally the employer would provide a dispute resolution process such as grievance procedure and/or arbitration. Unless she has proof that she submitted a complaint in writing and Chelsea failed to respond, her case is dead in the water immediately on this point.
2: The point about the male physio and female physio being treated differently isn't grounds for constructive dismissal. There is no proof that she was treated differently, the fact is she was the senior employee in that situation and therefore it's easy to argue that the punishment was deemed appropriate given the relative seniority of the employees. Regardless what the punishment was and whether it was disproportionate and/or discriminatory, the burden is upon her to prove it, and that would be impossible.
3: finally, an employment tribunal can only order certain outcomes, none of which result in significant payouts beyond the actual financial loss of income incurred. Compensation is not within the scope of an employment tribunal.
This is media manipulation by Carneiro's legal team, nothing more, nothing less. She will almost certainly get a settlement from Chelsea along with appropriate non disclosure clauses, not because they fear they will be discredited in the media, but because a settlement will be cheaper than going to court even if the case is found in their favour. Nobody will ever hear about this story again.
She's protecting her legal position so that the three month window of opportunity doesn't expire, and to apply some pressure to Chelsea - settlement remains by far the most likeliest outcome.
Mourinho is on record saying her role at the club changed as a direct result of naivety in her actions during the match - she will argue she wasn't given the opportunity to defend herself as publicly as she was accused (resulting in damage to her professional reputation) and that she was under the direction of the referee and her hippocratic oath with a duty to check on the player. It seems very black and white to me.
Maybe she is insisting on some kind of apology or club statement that she was just doing her job as a doctor and head of the matchday medical team as a part of any settlement which might be slowing down or blocking any offer from the club though.
