Case 2302760/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Olabisi King v Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302760/2020
- Decision date
- 11 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R Smith
- Venue
- London South via Cloud Video Platform
- Panel members
- Mr C. Rogers, Ms A. Boyce
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Olabisi King
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at London South via Cloud Video Platform before Employment Judge T.R Smith with Mr C. Rogers and Ms A. Boyce, dismissed the claimant’s direct race discrimination complaint and her indirect race discrimination complaint. The judgment records both discrimination complaints as not well founded. The claimant’s evidence was assisted by a Yoruba interpreter.
The tribunal upheld the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaints, recording that they were well-founded. It also found that the claimant caused or contributed to her dismissal as to 50%. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so no fuller reasoning or remedy breakdown appears in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaint dismissed; the judgment records it as not well founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect race discrimination complaint dismissed; the judgment records it as not well founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal complaints were found well-founded. The tribunal also found the claimant caused or contributed to her dismissal as to 50%. | Upheld | — | — |
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.