Case 1300874/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Mahroof v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 1300874/2022
- Decision date
- 2 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Akhtar Members
- Panel members
- Mr P Wilkinson, Mr T Liburd
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Mahroof
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Birmingham Employment Tribunal before Employment Judge Akhtar with lay members Mr P Wilkinson and Mr T Liburd, heard the case on 4 to 18 November 2024 and 19 to 22 November 2024 in chambers. The published judgment records that the unanimous decision was given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints of harassment related to disability, direct disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. Each of those discrimination complaints was recorded as not well-founded.
The tribunal also dismissed the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal, recording that it was not well-founded. No monetary award or other remedy is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment related to disability; the tribunal found it was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of direct disability discrimination; the tribunal found it was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments; the tribunal found it was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Complaint of constructive unfair dismissal; the tribunal found it was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.