Case 3200128/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T Daley v Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200128/2023
- Decision date
- 29 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans Members
- Panel members
- Ms R Hewitt, Miss J Clark
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms T Daley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints of direct disability discrimination, harassment related to disability, and unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, finding that each complaint was not well-founded.
The Tribunal upheld the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages. It found that Amare Health made an unauthorised deduction in August 2022 for 14 hours of work completed on 15 and 16 August 2022, and ordered Amare Health to pay the claimant the gross sum deducted.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of direct disability discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment related to disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Amare Health made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in August 2022 for 14 hours work completed on 15 and 16 August 2022. | Upheld | — | £252 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £252
- across all upheld claims
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.