Case 1406493/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R McBlain v Gloucestershire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 1406493/2020
- Decision date
- 24 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R McBlain
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment on withdrawal dated 27 October 2021. The tribunal dismissed the complaint of discrimination on the ground of pregnancy and/or maternity contrary to section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 after the claimant withdrew it. The tribunal also dismissed the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages and the complaint of breach of contract in respect of nonpayment of an exam fee after withdrawal.
The judgment records that, for the avoidance of doubt, the claimant continued to say that the nonpayment of the exam fee was an act of race discrimination. Those race discrimination allegations were not determined in this judgment.
The tribunal further recorded that the claimant's remaining claims of direct race discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal would proceed to hearing on 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 October 2022.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. The judgment notes that the claimant continued to say the nonpayment of the exam fee was an act of race discrimination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. The issue concerned nonpayment of an exam fee. | 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.