Case 2302487/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Bidivanu v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302487/2022
- Decision date
- 28 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mclaren Members
- Panel members
- Mr. C Wilby, Mrs. N Beeston
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Bidivanu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at London South on 26 to 28 February 2024 before Employment Judge Mclaren and lay members Mr C Wilby and Mrs N Beeston, unanimously dismissed all of the claimant's complaints against Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. The claims pleaded and determined were direct discrimination because of disability, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, direct discrimination because of race, indirect discrimination because of age, and harassment related to race.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination because of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Indirect discrimination because of age. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race. | 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.