Case 2219115/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Evelyn Mensah v The Royal College of Ophthalmologists — 2025
- Case reference
- 2219115/2024
- Decision date
- 11 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gidney Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Evelyn Mensah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Ms Evelyn Mensah was at all material times an employee of London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust and an unpaid volunteer in the Royal College of Ophthalmologists' EDI Lead role. The role was advertised as requiring about one hour a week and was unpaid, with applicants needing their employer's agreement to be released for the work. Ms Mensah remained employed and paid by LNWH, and the tribunal found that the College arrangement carried no salary, pension, contractual notice, sick leave obligation or other features of a contract of employment.
Applying s230 ERA 1996 and s83 Equality Act 2010, and citing Ready Mixed Concrete, X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau, Fire Brigades Union v Embery and Patel v Specsavers Optical Group Ltd, Employment Judge Gidney concluded that the claimant had no contract of service with the College and no contract personally to do work for it. The letter sent by Ali Rivett on 26 February 2024 said the College did not believe it was possible for her to remain in post as EDI Lead, but it did not refer to employment, dismissal or notice.
Because the employment and contract status point failed, the claimant's unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, victimisation and breach of contract claims were dismissed. The tribunal also refused the proposed amendments to add constructive dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal for a protected disclosure, indirect race discrimination and additional allegations of harassment related to race. The respondent's application for a deposit order was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found Ms Mensah was not an employee of the respondent within s230 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim dismissed because the tribunal found there was no employment or contractual relationship with the respondent for s39 EqA 2010 purposes. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Existing race-related harassment claim dismissed on the same status finding; the tribunal also refused the proposed additional allegations of harassment related to race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed on the tribunal's status findings; the alleged protected act was the claimant's race complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the tribunal held there was no contract between the claimant and the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Proposed by amendment; the tribunal refused the amendment because employee status and a contract with the respondent were not established. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s230 ERA 1996
- s83 Equality Act 2010
- Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions
- X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau & Another
- Fire Brigades Union v Embery
- Patel v Specsavers Optical Group Ltd
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.