Case 1400437/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Baboucarr Ceesay v Western Sussex Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400437/2020
- Decision date
- 10 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self
- Panel members
- Mrs C Lloyd-Jennings, Mr R Spry-Shute
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Baboucarr Ceesay
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Southampton by CVP on 16-19 August 2021 before Employment Judge Self, with Mrs C Lloyd-Jennings and Mr R Spry-Shute as the lay members. The claimant was Mr Baboucarr Ceesay and the respondent was Western Sussex Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.
The tribunal recorded that the claim of religion/belief discrimination was dismissed upon withdrawal. It also found that the direct race discrimination claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. The unfair dismissal claim was likewise found not well-founded and dismissed.
The judgment does not record any monetary award or remedy. The outcome is therefore dismissal of the remaining claims, with the religion/belief claim noted as dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment states that the religion/belief discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the direct race discrimination claim not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim 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.