Case 1403880/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Dr EA v 1) University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust 2) NHS England — 2025
- Case reference
- 1403880/2023
- Decision date
- 12 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr EA
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a trainee GP employed by University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust with NHS England responsible for his training, brought claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination (direct, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment) and direct race discrimination. The claims arose principally from his training at the Ouse Valley practice under educational supervisor Dr Hardingham and Annual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP) decisions in 2022 and 2023. Following the 11 January 2023 ARCP it was recommended that he be released from the training programme; the 1st respondent then dismissed him on the basis that remaining on the GP training programme was a term of his employment contract.
The tribunal found the claimant was disabled by reason of dyslexia and MS at the material times but not by reason of anxiety. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because, although PCPs placed him at a substantial disadvantage in some respects, the respondents did not fail to take reasonable steps to avoid that disadvantage. The discrimination arising from disability claim failed because, for the most part, unfavourable treatment was not because of something arising in consequence of disability, and where it was, the respondents showed the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The direct disability and direct race discrimination claims failed for want of facts from which less favourable treatment because of those protected characteristics could be inferred. The harassment claim failed because any proven unwanted conduct was not related to disability or did not have the requisite purpose or effect.
The unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for some other substantial reason, a potentially fair reason, and the 1st respondent acted reasonably in treating that as sufficient, having regard to its size and administrative resources. All claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for some other substantial reason (SOSR), a potentially fair reason, and the 1st respondent acted reasonably in treating that as a sufficient reason for dismissal having regard to its size and administrative resources. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim failed: no facts from which the tribunal could conclude the claimant was treated less favourably because of disability. Claimant was found disabled by reason of dyslexia and MS but not anxiety. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability (s.15 EqA): largely the unfavourable treatment was not because of something arising in consequence of disability; where it was, the respondents showed it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments: although in some respects the claimant was placed at a substantial disadvantage by PCPs, the respondents did not fail to take reasonable steps to avoid the disadvantage. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability: any proven unwanted conduct was not related to disability, or did not have the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. | 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.