Case 2305381/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P White v London Ambulance Service NHS Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305381/2021
- Decision date
- 19 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden With
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mrs R Bailey, Mr R Singh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P White
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously found that the claimant's complaints of indirect disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability were not well-founded and dismissed them.
The Tribunal also found that the complaints of constructive unfair dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal for raising health and safety concerns were not well-founded and dismissed them. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment does not set out further factual findings or reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination pursuant to section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability pursuant to section 21 of the Equality Act 2010 was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal pursuant to section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal for raising health and safety concerns pursuant to sections 100(1)(d) and 100(1)(e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 19 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 21 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 100(1)(d) and 100(1)(e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.