Case 2204615/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Ogunshakin, counsel For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2204615/2022
- Decision date
- 23 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hodgson
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms H Craik, Mr R Baber
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr J Ogunshakin, counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms Samina Ashraf, brought claims against NHS England alleging direct discrimination on grounds of race, religion and sex, harassment related to those protected characteristics, and less favourable treatment contrary to the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. The claim comprised approximately 33 individual allegations giving rise to over 70 cumulative allegations once each was put as multiple causes of action. The hearing took place at London Central before Employment Judge Hodgson, sitting with Ms H Craik and Mr R Baber, between 25 November and 6 December 2024, with deliberations in chambers on 7 and 8 January 2025.
The tribunal had to construct a list of issues itself, derived from the amended claim form, after the parties had been unable to agree one despite earlier case management hearings before EJ Joyce and EJ Emery. The tribunal noted that the claimant had failed to plead the names of comparators required for the Part-Time Workers Regulations claims, and that a list of ten names later supplied did not link comparators to particular allegations. The respondent's strike-out application was modified during the hearing so that a number of allegations proceeded to be determined on their merits.
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It held that all claims of direct discrimination failed, all claims of harassment failed, and all claims of less favourable treatment under the Part-Time Workers Regulations failed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination allegations across multiple paragraphs (8.1A, 8.2, 8.3, 8.3A, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7A, 8.7B, 8.10, 8.12, 8.15, 8.16, 8.18, 8.19, 8.20, 8.21, 8.25A) all dismissed per judgment paragraph 1. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct religion discrimination allegations across multiple paragraphs (8.1A, 8.3, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7A, 8.7B, 8.15, 8.17, 8.18, 8.19, 8.20, 8.21, 8.25A) all dismissed per judgment paragraph 1. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination allegations across multiple paragraphs (8.1, 8.2, 8.4, 8.9, 8.11, 8.12, 8.13, 8.16, 8.18, 8.19, 8.20) all dismissed per judgment paragraph 1. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | All claims of harassment dismissed per judgment paragraph 2. Harassment allegations related to protected characteristics of race, religion and sex spanning multiple incidents 2021-2022. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | All claims of less favourable treatment contrary to the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 dismissed per judgment paragraph 3. Tribunal noted the claimant had not pleaded comparators in the claim form. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
- regulation 5 of the PTWR
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.