Case 3314945/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Gitemi v Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 3314945/2023
- Decision date
- 6 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Dr B Von Maydell-Koch, Mr P Randall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Gitemi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed with immediate effect after a history of sickness absence. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was capability, that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant was likely to be unable to sustain an acceptable level of sickness absence, and that this belief followed reasonable investigation and consultation, including occupational health referrals and attendance meetings.
For the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal found that some of the claimant's sickness absence arose in consequence of disability and contributed in part to the dismissal. It found, however, that the dismissal was mainly because of absence unrelated to disability, that less serious options had been considered and reasonably rejected, and that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims. The tribunal also found that dismissal and rejection of the appeal were not because of protected acts, and the direct race discrimination claim was withdrawn.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was capability and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim was discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found some sickness absence arose from disability and contributed to dismissal in part, but dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found dismissal was a detriment but was not because the claimant did a protected act. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant withdrew the direct race discrimination claim at the hearing; the judgment records it as dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
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.