Case 6000674/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Suleyman v University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000674/2024
- Decision date
- 4 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Williams Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Suleyman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing in public, the Tribunal found that Ms M Suleyman had not been employed by University Hospitals Bristol & Weston NHS Foundation Trust for at least two years when her employment ended. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine it.
The Tribunal also found that, at the relevant times, the Claimant was not a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of hip pain and/or bursitis. The complaint of discrimination arising out of disability and/or failure to make reasonable adjustments was therefore dismissed.
The judgment states that all claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant had not been employed by the Respondent for at least two years when her employment ended, so it had no jurisdiction to determine the unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal found that, at the relevant times, the Claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of hip pain and/or bursitis. The complaint of discrimination arising out of disability and/or failure to make reasonable adjustments was therefore dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 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.