Case 2412142/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Hussain v East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2412142/2023
- Decision date
- 29 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms L Hopley, Ms A Jackson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Hussain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust as a band two Health Care Assistant. The respondent accepted that the claimant's dyslexia and dyspraxia were disabilities at the relevant time, and it conceded that the matters relied on as something arising from disability and the protected acts relied on for victimisation met those parts of the claims.
The Tribunal upheld two allegations of discrimination arising from disability: ending the claimant's trial in the patient services team which started on 24 April 2023, and arranging a face-to-face meeting at very short notice on 26 September 2024 to discuss her trial. It also upheld specified victimisation allegations about the resolution meeting process, responses to trade union officer emails, pausing that process pending the Tribunal claim, delayed meeting notes, and bank shifts while the claimant awaited the CCU trial.
The Tribunal upheld two harassment allegations related to disability concerning the occupational health referral describing the claimant as disruptive and the notification that she could not carry out bank shifts. The remaining discrimination arising from disability, victimisation, and harassment complaints were dismissed, as were the complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments and direct disability discrimination.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaints of discrimination arising from disability succeeded in relation to ending the claimant's trial in the patient services team which started on 24 April 2023 and arranging a face-to-face meeting at very short notice on 26 September 2024 to discuss her trial. Other discrimination arising from disability complaints were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaints succeeded in relation to failures following the 1 December 2023 resolution meeting, failures to respond to emails from the claimant's trade union officer, stating on 16 February 2024 that the resolution meeting process would not continue until the Tribunal claim had concluded, delayed provision of notes, and not allowing bank shifts while awaiting the CCU trial. Other victimisation complaints were dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability succeeded in relation to preparing the occupational health referral describing the claimant as disruptive on 23 January 2024 and notifying the claimant that she could not carry out bank shifts. Other harassment complaints were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 27 EqA
- section 13 EqA
- proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
- just and equitable
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.