Case 6003823/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Goulding v Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust — 2026
- Case reference
- 6003823/2024
- Decision date
- 30 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Goulding
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that one complaint of harassment related to disability, concerning comments made by Professor Poulton in an email to the claimant and others on 9 March 2023, was dismissed on withdrawal.
The Tribunal dismissed the claimant's remaining complaints of disability-related harassment. It also found that the complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, including the complaints concerning the PCP at 4.2 and physical features of the office at 4.4 of the List of Issues, were not well-founded and dismissed them.
The written judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to disability at 3.1.2 in the List of Issues was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The claimant's other complaints of disability-related harassment failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, concerning both the PCP at 4.2 and physical office features at 4.4 of the List of Issues, were not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.