Case 3206215/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Oumouly Ba v North East London NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 3206215/2021
- Decision date
- 4 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H Travers Members
- Panel members
- Ms A. Berry, Ms S. Harwood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Oumouly Ba
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by Cloud Video Platform at East London Hearing Centre on 1 to 4 August 2023 before Employment Judge H Travers with members Ms A. Berry and Ms S. Harwood. The judgment records that all claims were dismissed.
The tribunal expressly identified the dismissed complaints as direct discrimination on the grounds of race, harassment on the grounds of race, protected disclosure and consequent detriment, and victimisation. The extracted judgment text does not set out separate findings of fact, legal reasoning, or any remedy award beyond the overall dismissal of the claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct discrimination on the grounds of race was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the complaint of harassment on the grounds of race was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the complaint of protected disclosure and consequent detriment was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the complaint of victimisation was dismissed; no protected characteristic is specified in the extracted text. | 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.