Case 2301373/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Slade v Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301373/2022
- Decision date
- 24 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans
- Panel members
- Mrs R Effeny, Mr C Rogers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Slade
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at London South by video on 21, 22, 23 and 24 October 2024 before Employment Judge Evans, Mrs R Effeny and Mr C Rogers, heard Miss J Slade's claims against Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust. The unanimous judgment dismissed all complaints: direct disability discrimination, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, and victimisation.
The published record states that each complaint was "not well-founded". It does not set out the tribunal's factual findings or legal reasoning because the reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested. No remedy was awarded or recorded in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination complaint; the tribunal found it was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability; the tribunal found it was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability; the tribunal found it was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The written record does not give further particulars because reasons were delivered orally at the hearing; the complaint was found not well-founded and dismissed. | 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.