Case 1809290/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Sarah Adomi v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 1809290/2018
- Decision date
- 1 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Sarah Adomi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered five alleged discriminatory acts in the first claim. Acts one and two concerned the failure to uphold the claimant's first grievance and grievance appeal. Act three concerned the alleged failure to provide a suitable role commensurate with her qualifications and experience. Act four concerned the decision to refer her to a capability hearing, described by the claimant as disciplinary. Act five concerned the handling of her second and third grievances.
The claimant conceded that acts one and two were not continuing acts and were out of time. The tribunal held that act three was also not a continuing act, but a one-off decision with continuing consequences. It found no sufficient linkage between act three and act five, and concluded that the claimant had not shown cogent reasons for the long delay or for extending time.
The tribunal refused to extend time for acts one, two and three, noting the age of the events, the effect of delay on evidence, the departure of relevant staff, and the balance of prejudice. It held that act four formed part of an ongoing capability process leading to dismissal and was a continuing act; alternatively, it would have been just and equitable to extend time. Act five was accepted by the respondent as in time, because the second grievance was effectively incorporated into the third grievance.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Preliminary judgment on limitation only. Alleged discriminatory acts one, two and three were struck out as out of time and no just and equitable extension was granted. Act four was held in time, or alternatively time would have been extended, and act five was accepted as in time. The merits of the race discrimination allegations were not determined. | Other | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary judgment on limitation only. Alleged discriminatory acts one, two and three were struck out as out of time and no just and equitable extension was granted. Act four was held in time, or alternatively time would have been extended, and act five was accepted as in time. The merits of the disability discrimination allegations were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust
- Barclays Bank PLC v Kapur
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
- Cast v Croydon College
- Aziz v FDA
- Hale v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- section 33 Limitation Act 1980
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Afolabi v Southwark London Borough Council
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.