Case 2304390/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Fernandez v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2304390/2023
- Decision date
- 7 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Tribunal
- Panel members
- Tribunal Member Carter, Tribunal Member Singh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Fernandez
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a perfusionist at Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, brought claims of constructive unfair dismissal, indirect age and sex discrimination, harassment related to age and sex, unlawful deduction from wages, and breach of contract. The claims arose against the backdrop of the Government's VCOD requirements during the Covid-19 pandemic; the claimant was concerned about vaccination while attempting to become pregnant. A human rights element and certain other allegations were withdrawn at the outset of the hearing.
The tribunal dismissed the constructive dismissal claim, finding no fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and concluding that, in any event, the claimant had affirmed the contract by seeking redeployment within the trust and by pursuing NHS Injury Allowance after the matters relied upon in her resignation. The indirect age discrimination claim was held to have no reasonable prospect of success given Schedule 22 Equality Act 2010, and the indirect sex discrimination claim failed because the required disadvantages were not properly identified and because pursuing VCOD was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. None of the harassment allegations succeeded.
The respondent conceded that it had failed to pay the claimant for accrued but untaken holiday, and remedy on that point is to be determined at a subsequent hearing if not agreed. All other aspects of the wages and breach of contract claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
14 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract; further held that even if a breach had occurred, the claimant waived/affirmed by seeking redeployment and pursuing NHS Injury Allowance after the alleged breaches. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Indirect age discrimination claim relating to the VCOD vaccination PCP. Tribunal noted the claim had no reasonable prospect of success given Schedule 22 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination claim relating to the VCOD vaccination PCP. Tribunal found the required disadvantages were not properly identified and that pursuing VCOD was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to age arising from interactions about vaccination status. No allegation of harassment succeeded. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex arising from interactions about vaccination status. No allegation of harassment succeeded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Respondent conceded it failed to pay the claimant in respect of accrued but untaken holiday. Remedy to be determined at a subsequent hearing if not agreed. All other aspects of the unlawful deduction from wages claim were dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 22 Equality Act 2010
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.