Case 2204606/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Gabriele Orsini v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204606/2022
- Decision date
- 4 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead
- Panel members
- Ms Brayson, Mr Benson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Gabriele Orsini
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent accepted that the Claimant's chronic lymphoedema causing leg ulcers was a disability at the material times. The tribunal was not persuaded that workplace stress materially exacerbated the Claimant's leg ulcers, and found that the Respondent did not have adequate evidence to know, and could not reasonably be expected to know, that stress had that alleged effect.
The reasonable adjustments complaints were dismissed. The tribunal found that the alleged withdrawal of home working in January 2020 was not made out and was out of time; that the Respondent did have policies allowing phased returns with limited duties and following occupational health recommendations; and that the Respondent had not failed to make the specific adjustments alleged. It found that efforts to identify work-related stressors had not produced actionable information before the Claimant returned to sickness absence and later took ill-health retirement.
The harassment complaints were also dismissed. The tribunal found that Employee Relations had not answered some questions and had not dealt well or promptly with document requests, but those matters did not amount to unlawful harassment related to disability. The allegation about cancellation of flexible working was out of time and, in any event, the tribunal found the arrangement had not been cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed after being withdrawn at the start of the merits hearing. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed after being withdrawn at the start of the merits hearing. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claims under ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010 were found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Disability harassment claims under s.26 Equality Act 2010 were found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
23 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- s.40 Equality Act 2010
- s.109 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 8 Equality Act 2010
- EHRC Code of Practice on Employment (2011)
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Griffiths-Henry
- Romec v Rudham
- Cumbria Probation Board v Collingwood
- Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust v Foster
- Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Mylott
- North Lancashire Teaching Primary Care NHS Trust v Howorth
- Brightman v TIAA Ltd
- Tarbuck v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd
- Project Management Institute v Latif
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.