Case 1404273/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Lydia Morris v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 1404273/2023
- Decision date
- 12 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bradford Members
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mr L Wakeman, Mr P Bompas
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Lydia Morris
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed all of Miss Lydia Morris’s claims against Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust. It found that the Respondent did not fail in its duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010, and accordingly did not discriminate against the Claimant on that basis.
It also rejected the claims of disability harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010 and victimisation under section 27 Equality Act 2010. The judgment records those claims as not made out.
The Claimant’s claim for discriminatory constructive dismissal under section 39(7) Equality Act 2010 was likewise dismissed, the tribunal stating that the Respondent had not discriminated against the Claimant. No remedy or monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim that the Respondent failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Claim under section 26 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Claim under section 27 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Claim described by the tribunal as discriminatory constructive dismissal under section 39(7) Equality Act 2010; dismissed because the tribunal had not found discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.