Case 2400760/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Lomas v Cheadle Royal Healthcare Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2400760/2022
- Decision date
- 1 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms Dowling, Ms Owen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Lomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a health care assistant, alleged that the respondent's decision to move her from the Elmswood unit to the Featherstone ward, and later communications about that move, amounted to direct disability discrimination and harassment related to disability. The respondent said the move followed concerns about patient safety and professional boundaries after a patient self-harmed.
The tribunal found that the respondent's decision and subsequent conduct were not because of, or related to, the claimant's disability. It found that the respondent was seeking to protect patients on Elmswood and that later communication issues were explained by managers believing the matter was being handled by HR or another manager.
The tribunal rejected several factual allegations, including the alleged comment at the 14 October 2021 meeting, and found that Katie Warren maintained regular contact with the claimant between October 2021 and February 2022. Both the direct disability discrimination and harassment complaints were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of direct disability discrimination was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to disability was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Wong v Igen Ltd
- Ayodele v Citylink Limited
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.