Case 2500515/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Kelley Blacker v County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500515/2022
- Decision date
- 28 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Dorothy
- Venue
- Newcastle
- Panel members
- Dorothy Winter, Stephen Carter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Kelley Blacker
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that, by concession, the claimant's complaint of unlawful deduction of wages was well-founded and succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £4,713.52.
The tribunal dismissed as not well-founded the remaining complaints: direct disability discrimination, discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation, and unfair dismissal under sections 103A and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment records that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deduction of wages claim succeeded by concession, and the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £4,713.52. | Upheld | — | £4,714 |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20-21 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation under section 27 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal under sections 103A and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,714
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20-21 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.