So, Sharon Shoesmith has lodged a claim in the Employment Tribunal. No big surprise there! It will be an interesting one to watch, completely outside the harrowing details of the Baby P case - did Haringey manage to follow their procedures correctly in such a high pressure case?

I have to say, Mr Balls publicly announcing in a Press conference that she “was not fit for purpose” was ill considered in terms of employment law and good management. I can see some parallels in cases I have had to deal with, Senior Management making comments which severely prejudice a fair dismissal process making it a foregone conclusion. I am sure every HR Professional has had that crushing “doh!” moment at some point in their career!

Most interestingly, was she treated differently than a man would have been? Would she have been offered a compromise agreement to resign quietly and go away (silently taking the blame?), would she have been offered early retirement and a smoothly managed exit to retain her reputation? Were all the strategies and tools that corporations can employ to make a “situation” go quietly thought about and discarded or was it offered “without prejudice” and she refused?

What is Haringey’s history of solving these types of employment issues?

One thing is for sure, the compensation will be high, because she is more or less unemployable now and was on a high salary. But don’t go thinking that most discrimination cases settle for 100’s of thousands.