Case 4113844/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Pauline Sanson v University of Stirling — 2022
- Case reference
- 4113844/2021
- Decision date
- 12 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Pauline Sanson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Pauline Sanson brought direct discrimination and harassment complaints under the EQA, with an outstanding application to add indirect discrimination, against University of Stirling and Forth Valley Health Board. This hearing before Employment Judge L Doherty on 28 June 2022 was a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction. The second respondent observed but took no active part.
The tribunal found that the University provided a BSc Nursing degree with a substantial practical placement element carried out with the second respondent. Placements were for training and education. The university allocated placements, but did not direct the claimant's work on placement, did not receive services from her, did not pay her, and had no mutuality of obligations with her. The tribunal accepted the evidence of Ms Lorna Stoppard on those points and referred to Blackwood v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust.
On that basis, the tribunal held that Ms Sanson was not an employee or worker of the first respondent for EQA purposes and that it had no jurisdiction to determine the section 13, section 26 or proposed section 19 claims against the university. It also held that a claim under section 91 of the EQA is outside Employment Tribunal jurisdiction and would have to be pursued in the civil courts. No monetary remedy was awarded, and a further case management hearing was to be fixed in relation to issues arising from correspondence with the second respondent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Jurisdictional dismissal only. The tribunal held that Ms Sanson was not an employee or worker of the first respondent for EQA purposes, so it had no jurisdiction to determine the direct discrimination claim against University of Stirling. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Jurisdictional dismissal only. The tribunal held that Ms Sanson was not an employee or worker of the first respondent for EQA purposes, so it had no jurisdiction to determine the harassment claim against University of Stirling. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Other | The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider a complaint under section 91 of the Equality Act in the Employment Tribunal; it said such a complaint would have to be pursued in the civil courts. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Blackwood v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (2016) EWCA 607
- Equality Act 2010 s.83(2)
- Equality Act 2010 s.120(1)
- Equality Act 2010 s.91
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.