Case 2304062/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Osei v St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304062/2023
- Decision date
- 8 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados Members
- Panel members
- Mr M Marenda, Mr K Murphy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Osei
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAfter a hearing at London South on 4 to 7 November 2024, a unanimous Employment Tribunal chaired by Employment Judge Tsamados with lay members Mr M Marenda and Mr K Murphy dismissed Ms J Osei's complaints against St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The tribunal held that the complaints of direct race, age and religion/belief discrimination were not well founded.
The tribunal also held that the related complaints of harassment connected with race, age and religion/belief were not well founded. In addition, the complaint for damages for breach of contract was dismissed as not well founded.
As all complaints failed, the claim was dismissed in its entirety. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment related to race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment related to age. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment related to religion or belief. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for damages for breach of contract. | 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.