Case 2415283/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs I Zormello v Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2415283/2021
- Decision date
- 1 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater
- Panel members
- Mr A Egerton, Ms E Cadbury
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs I Zormello
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe unanimous judgment recorded that Mrs Zormello's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was not well founded.
The Tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaints of harassment related to race and direct race discrimination. Those complaints had been presented out of time, and the Tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to consider them out of time.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment does not set out further factual findings or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction because the harassment related to race complaint was presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to consider it out of time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction because the direct race discrimination complaint was presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to consider it out of time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.