Case 2405640/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Yassa v Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2405640/2023
- Decision date
- 4 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms A Jackson, Ms E Cadbury
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Yassa
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard at Manchester on 6 to 8 May 2025 before Employment Judge Childe, Ms A Jackson and Ms E Cadbury. The claimant was Mr R Yassa and the respondent was Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust. The tribunal gave a unanimous judgment and recorded that the complaint of direct race discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed, and that the complaint of victimisation was not well-founded and was dismissed.
The written record does not set out the tribunal's reasons in detail. It states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the available extract records only the outcome of each complaint. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment extract.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that the complaint of direct race discrimination was not well-founded and dismissed it. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons are provided in this extract. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal held that the complaint of victimisation was not well-founded and dismissed it. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons are provided in this extract. | 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.