Case 2300285/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z v Medway NHS Foundation Trust HELD AT: London South (CVP) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300285/2022
- Decision date
- 8 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hart
- Panel members
- Mr Sheath, Mr Huggins
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Z
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a registered nurse who is male and of Asian Filipino background, brought claims arising from the respondent's decisions to report him to the police, suspend him, refer him to the Nursing and Midwifery Council, and not progress a later grievance. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had not been charged, the police investigation resulted in no charges, the internal investigation found no case to answer, and the case was presented on the basis that the claimant had been falsely accused.
The tribunal dismissed the race and sex discrimination and harassment claims. In the visible reasons, it accepted the respondent's explanations that the police report, suspension and NMC referral were because of the seriousness of the allegation made by patient A, and not because of the claimant's sex; it also found no evidence that the relevant conduct was related to sex. It found that the grievance issue was not a detriment or unwanted conduct on the facts and, in any event, was not because of sex. The judgment states that all race and/or sex discrimination and harassment claims did not succeed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claims were dismissed. The supplied judgment text is truncated, but the reserved judgment and conclusion clearly state the outcome. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race claims were dismissed. The supplied judgment text is truncated, but the reserved judgment and conclusion clearly state the outcome. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect race discrimination claim concerning referral to the NMC was dismissed. The supplied judgment text is truncated, but the reserved judgment and conclusion clearly state the outcome. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- burden of proof
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.