Case 6003531/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Christine Donnelly v NHS North East London ICB — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003531/2024
- Decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Craft Members
- Panel members
- Mrs T Jansen, Mrs A Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Christine Donnelly
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, who was employed as a Band 7 Senior GP IT Facilitator and had multiple sclerosis, brought disability discrimination claims concerning the Respondent's requirement that Senior Facilitators attend the office or GP surgery sites for three days per week. The Respondent accepted that the Claimant was disabled at the material time.
The Tribunal found that the role continued to require an effective combination of on-site and remote working, particularly after the end of Covid restrictions and following the merger. It found that the Claimant had made only one journey into London in the eight months before her February 2024 relapse, and concluded that commuting could not have caused that relapse.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent recognised the Claimant's multiple sclerosis, relapse and commuting demands when considering her flexible working application. It found that the Respondent offered a substantial adjustment, considered redeployment, remained open to further discussion, and did not fail to make a reasonable adjustment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010 for discrimination arising from disability was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 for failure to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20/21 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.