Case 2203713/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Chirindo v AND University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 2203713/2019
- Decision date
- 11 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Chirindo
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing on 6 March 2020 before Employment Judge Russell, the tribunal considered Ms L Chirindo's claims after she had resigned on 22 July 2019 from her role as a nursing assistant with University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The tribunal recorded that she had been suspended on 26 October 2018, that the respondent said its investigation had been finalised on 12 June 2019 with no disciplinary case to answer, and that the 2 July 2019 letter caused the claimant concern because she understood it to refer to disciplinary action. The tribunal also noted its view that, if she had not resigned, her employment would have continued with continuity intact.
The tribunal said the claimant's ET1 was confused in places and clarified that she did not have a separate reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 to 21 of the Equality Act 2010. It accepted that she was disabled by reason of osteoarthritis and recorded that the live claims would proceed as constructive unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, and direct race discrimination. The disability issues were identified as including the rota change and underpayment of allowances during suspension, and the race claim was said to focus on the outcome of the disciplinary investigation by reference to a hypothetical comparator.
On jurisdiction and time limits, the tribunal said the respondent's jurisdiction point remained unresolved for the full hearing, but its preliminary view was that any discrimination allegations said to be out of time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 formed part of a continuing course of events connected with the suspension, investigation and possible disciplinary process, and that it would be just and equitable to extend time if needed. The tribunal therefore made case management directions and listed the matter to continue, with no merits or remedy determination made at the preliminary hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The claimant resigned on 22 July 2019 alleging constructive unfair dismissal; the tribunal said the claim would continue to a final hearing. No merits determination was made at this stage. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled by reason of osteoarthritis and identified live issues of discrimination arising from disability concerning the rota change and underpayment of allowance during suspension. It gave a preliminary time-limit view under s.123 Equality Act 2010 but left any final jurisdiction point to the full tribunal. | Other | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal identified a direct race discrimination claim focused on the outcome of the disciplinary investigation by reference to a hypothetical comparator. It gave a preliminary time-limit view under s.123 Equality Act 2010 but made no merits finding. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
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.