Case 1301498/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Aleisha Daniel v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 1301498/2021
- Decision date
- 22 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Jones
- Panel members
- Mrs S Bannister, Mr S Woodall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Aleisha Daniel
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded its decision after a hearing held in Birmingham by remote video, before Employment Judge J Jones sitting with Mrs S Bannister and Mr S Woodall. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The judgment states that the claimant's claims of direct race discrimination, indirect race discrimination, harassment on the grounds of race, harassment on the grounds of disability, victimisation, and failure to make reasonable adjustments failed and were dismissed. The judgment also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect race discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment on the grounds of race dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment on the grounds of disability dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.