Case 1400484/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jean Luc Ohen v Gloucestershire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400484/2022
- Decision date
- 31 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Ms J Kaye, Mr H Launder
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Jean Luc Ohen
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant's harassment and direct discrimination claims. The short judgment records those claims as not well founded. The direct discrimination claim is treated here as race discrimination in line with the case listing, although the judgment text itself refers only to direct discrimination.
The tribunal also rejected the constructive dismissal claim overall. It recorded that the complaint about the respondent's failure to produce CCTV was well founded in substance, but held that this aspect was presented out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented that complaint in time and therefore dismissed it for want of jurisdiction. No financial award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment refers to this only as a claim of direct discrimination; the race characteristic is taken from the case listing context. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal said the constructive dismissal claim was not well founded overall. It noted that the complaint about failure to produce CCTV was well founded in substance, but held that this complaint was presented out of time and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. | 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.