Case 1403647/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 1403647/2022
- Decision date
- 12 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims concerning age and sexual orientation discrimination. The age discrimination claims and victimisation claims were withdrawn on 15 December 2023, leaving sexual orientation discrimination and harassment allegations for determination.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not been failed but had been referred to an action plan intended to help him pass the placement. It found that the action plan and related management concerns concerned performance, clinical duties, communication, and ward practice, and had nothing to do with the claimant's sexual orientation.
The tribunal concluded that the sexual orientation claims failed. It found no unwanted conduct related to sexual orientation and no less favourable treatment on the grounds of sexual orientation, including in relation to matters of workplace gossip.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the age discrimination claims were withdrawn by the claimant on 15 December 2023. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that victimisation claims were withdrawn by the claimant on 15 December 2023. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the direct sexual orientation discrimination complaints. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal dismissed the sexual orientation harassment complaints. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 of the Equality Act 2010
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.