Case 2602452/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Paulette Shaw v Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602452/2021
- Decision date
- 24 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed Members
- Panel members
- Ms L Woodward, Mr K Rose
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Paulette Shaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 15 to 19, 22 and 23 May 2023 in Leicester, Employment Judge Ahmed sat with Ms L Woodward and Mr K Rose. The Claimant was represented by Mr Nicholas Bidnell-Edwards of counsel and the Respondent by Mr Colin Baran of counsel.
The Tribunal unanimously dismissed the Claimant's complaints of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments. The judgment also records that the indirect disability discrimination complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal.
The Tribunal further held that the Claimant was not unfairly dismissed. No monetary remedy is recorded in the judgment extract.
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 | Direct disability discrimination dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | Failure to comply with the duty to make adjustments dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the Claimant was not unfairly dismissed. | 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.