Case 2414134/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Eckersall v Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2414134/2021
- Decision date
- 16 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
- Venue
- Manchester and
- Panel members
- Ms A Gilchrist, Ms V Worthington
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Eckersall
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously dismissed all of the claimant's complaints. It held that the section 15 discrimination arising from disability complaint had not been presented within the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The tribunal further held that the complaints of direct disability discrimination, direct sex discrimination, indirect sex discrimination, associative indirect disability discrimination, harassment related to sex, harassment related to disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and victimisation were not well-founded and were dismissed.
The written judgment is a short record of the outcome only. It notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, so the written record does not set out the tribunal's detailed reasoning beyond the findings above.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 discrimination arising from disability claim was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination claim dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Associative indirect disability discrimination claim dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex claim dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability claim dismissed as not well-founded. |
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.