Case 1803709/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Kerry Duley v NHS Sheffield Clinical Commissioning Group — 2020
- Case reference
- 1803709/2019
- Decision date
- 12 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Venue
- Sheffield
- Panel members
- Mr PR Kent, Mr DW Fields
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Kerry Duley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Kerry Duley brought claims against NHS Sheffield Clinical Commissioning Group heard at Sheffield on 10 to 12 March 2020 before Employment Judge JM Wade sitting with Mr PR Kent and Mr DW Fields. The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint, stating that it was not well founded.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's disability discrimination complaints. These included alleged failures to make reasonable adjustments and allegations that failures to allow her to return to work, together with her dismissal, amounted to contraventions of section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failures to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint that failures to allow a return to work and the dismissal were contraventions of section 15 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.