News

Eva Carneiro Rejects Chelsea’s £1.2 Million Settlement Fee

Published

7 years ago

June 6, 2016

Former Chelsea physio Eva Carneiro rejected a settlement offer of £1.2 million before her employment tribunal, official documents have revealed.
Carneiro’s tribunal began in Croydon on Monday with the case expected to run over seven to 10 days. The 42-year-old doctor was publicly criticised by Mourinho for running on to the pitch to treat Eden Hazard in the closing stages of Chelsea’s draw with Swansea City on the opening day of the season last August.
Carneiro, who was called “impulsive and naive” by Mourinho, was then stripped of her first-team duties before she left the club in September.
Carneiro is claiming constructive dismissal against Chelsea and also has another case against Jose Mourinho for alleged victimisation and discrimination.
Mourinho was not in south London on Monday but is expected to give evidence.
The former Chelsea boss, who was confirmed as Manchester United’s new manager last month, has admitted to using the Portuguese phrase “filho da puta”, which translates to “son of of a b***h or whore”, towards Carneiro but has denied that his words had any sexist connotations.
An extract from Mourinho’s statement, which was read out by the panel, said: “Filho da puta is a phrase I often use, all of the players know it. There is no sexist connotation in the use of the phrase – it is just like saying ‘f**k off’.
“In the world of football, a lot of swear words are used.”
Carneiro argues that Mourinho used the term as a sign of abuse.
Mary O’Rourke QC, who is representing Carneiro, said: “He uses the word ‘filha’ because he is abusing a woman.”
Chelsea have confirmed that an “open offer” of £1.2m has been made Carneiro as a settlement fee.
A statement on behalf of Chelsea and Mourinho stated: “The respondents have taken these steps only because they believe that it is in no-one’s interests that this dispute should be determined through litigation.
“They are conscious that, whatever the facts of the matter, it is likely to be widely and incorrectly assumed that they could have avoided this coming tribunal.”