Case 1401978/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. S Thomson v University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust — 2026
- Case reference
- 1401978/2024
- Decision date
- 16 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray-Jones
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Ms S Maidment, Mr K Sleeth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. S Thomson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant worked as a bank registered nurse for the Respondent. The Respondent conceded that he was disabled by dyslexia and autism, that it knew of the disability at the material time, and that he had made the protected disclosures relied on. The Tribunal found that the Respondent subjected him to protected disclosure detriments by restricting his Bank shifts in November 2023, continuing to restrict him from Emergency Department shifts, restricting Bank shifts in June 2024, and terminating his Bank contract.
The Tribunal upheld direct disability discrimination in relation to termination of the Bank contract, finding that the Respondent had not shown the decision was not materially influenced by disability. It also upheld discrimination arising from disability in relation to the November 2023 restriction, finding that the Claimant's response to a sudden change in shift arrangements arose from autism and that the restriction was not shown to be a proportionate means of achieving the stated legitimate aim.
Other complaints of whistleblowing detriment, direct disability discrimination, and disability discrimination by reason of a failure to make reasonable adjustments or provide an auxiliary aid were dismissed. The judgment was on liability only and stated that the matter would be listed for a further hearing to determine remedy for the upheld complaints.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed on withdrawal at a preliminary hearing on 11 March 2025. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The Tribunal upheld protected disclosure detriment complaints concerning restrictions on Bank shifts in November 2023, continuing restriction from Emergency Department shifts, restriction from Bank shifts in June 2024, and termination of the Bank contract. Other whistleblowing detriment complaints were dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal upheld the direct disability discrimination complaint under s.13 Equality Act 2010 in relation to termination of the Claimant's Bank contract. Other direct disability discrimination complaints were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal upheld the discrimination arising from disability complaint under s.15 Equality Act 2010 concerning the November 2023 restriction from Bank shifts and continuing restriction from Emergency Department shifts. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of disability discrimination by reason of a failure to make reasonable adjustments or provide an auxiliary aid was dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.