Case 1401200/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. Julia Miller v University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401200/2024
- Decision date
- 24 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Salter Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. Julia Miller
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints including disability discrimination and sex discrimination. At this public preliminary hearing, the tribunal was asked to decide whether she was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period in December 2023.
The tribunal found that anxiety had a substantial impact on the claimant's day-to-day activities, but was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it was a symptom of the menopause as pleaded. It therefore found that she was not disabled by reason of anxiety.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence about joint problems, sleeping issues, urge incontinence and excessive bleeding, including their impact on stairs, work interactions, memory and stopping work when bleeding was excessive. It found that joint pain, urinary incontinence and excessive bleeding amounted to disabilities at the relevant time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Public preliminary hearing judgment on whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled at the relevant time by reason of anxiety, but was disabled at the relevant time by reason of joint pain, urinary incontinence and excessive bleeding. The judgment does not determine final liability or remedy. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Equality Act 2010 disability definition
- balance of probabilities
- substantial adverse effect
- long-term effect
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.