Case 2302483/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Cyril Nzouakou v Kent Community Healthcare Foundation NHS Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302483/2022
- Decision date
- 30 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Cyril Nzouakou
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the London South hearing on 22 to 30 September 2025 before Employment Judge Evans, the tribunal dismissed Mrs Cyril Nzouakou's complaints of direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, and victimisation against Kent Community Healthcare Foundation NHS Trust. Each of those complaints was recorded as not well-founded.
The tribunal also found that Mrs Nzouakou was not constructively dismissed. Her constructive unfair dismissal complaint and her constructive discriminatory dismissal complaint were both dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was not constructively dismissed; the constructive unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment refers to this complaint as constructive discriminatory dismissal and dismisses it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.