Case 1401162/2021 · Employment Tribunal
- IN PERSON FOR THE v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401162/2021
- Decision date
- 4 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
- Panel members
- Mr P English, Mr R Spry-Shute
Parties
1 namedClaimant
- IN PERSON FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Aderibigbe brought claims against Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust and Lois Howell. The tribunal sat in Bristol and its unanimous judgment was that the claimant’s claims of direct race discrimination under s13 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed as against both respondents.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant’s indirect race discrimination claim under s19 Equality Act 2010 against both respondents. In addition, the claim for detriment for having exercised the right to parental leave under s47C Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed against both respondents.
No monetary remedy was awarded in the judgment extract provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Claim dismissed against both respondents. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | This entry captures the indirect race discrimination claim under s19 Equality Act 2010, which the tribunal dismissed against both respondents. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Parental leave | Claim under s47C Employment Rights Act 1996 for detriment because the claimant exercised the right to parental leave; dismissed against both respondents. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.