Case 3311373/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Lauren Phillips v Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311373/2023
- Decision date
- 6 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S. Matthews
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms L. Davies, Mrs. W. Smith
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Lauren Phillips
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant's complaints of direct disability discrimination, harassment related to disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, and victimisation. Each complaint was recorded as not well-founded.
The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing. The provided written record does not include detailed findings, legal analysis, or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the complaint of direct disability discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons are not included in the provided text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment records that the complaint of harassment related to disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons are not included in the provided text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons are not included in the provided text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons are not included in the provided text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records that the complaint of victimisation was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons are not included in the provided 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.