Case 2204794/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Stubbs v North London NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2204794/2023
- Decision date
- 15 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Forde
- Venue
- London Central via CVP
- Panel members
- Mr A Adolphus, Ms S Campbell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Stubbs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant's complaint of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure. It also dismissed the complaint of detriment because of a flexible working request.
The Tribunal dismissed the complaints of direct race discrimination, direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment related to disability, and victimisation. The short judgment states that each complaint was not well-founded, but does not give reasons or remedy figures.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible working | Complaint of being subjected to a detriment because of a flexible working request was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment related to disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Complaint of victimisation was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Complaint of direct discrimination on the basis of race was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of direct disability discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was not well-founded and was dismissed. |
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.