Loading page content.
Employer file
Since 2017, The Claimant’s claims for breaches of s39, 40, and 55 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded because: 1.1. The Claimant’s allegations of direct disability Discrimination in breach of s13 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.2. The Claimant’s allegations of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of her disabilities in breach of s15 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.3. The Claimant’s allegations that the Respondents failed to make reasonable adjustments in breach of s20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.4. The Claimant’s allegations that the Respondents subjected the Claimant to harassment in breach of s26 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.5. The Claimant’s allegations that the Respondents victimised the Claimant in breach of s27 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; Consequently, all discrimination allegations against both Respondents fail and are dismissed. has appeared as a respondent in 1 employment tribunal case, with £0 in total awards recorded against the employer.
| # | Claim type | Cases |
|---|---|---|
| 01 | Sex discrimination | 1 |
| 02 | Unfair dismissal | 1 |
| 03 | Working time regulations | 1 |
| Case ref. | Decided | Jurisdiction | Claimant | Claim types | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1306537/2020 | 28 February 2024 | England & Wales | Ms B Respondent 1: Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Respondent 2: NHS England Respondent 3: No longer a party to the proceedings Respondent 4: Birmingham City Council (Claims against this Respondent had settled). | Sex discrimination, Unfair dismissal, Working time regulations | — |
Data extracted from published employment tribunal judgments on gov.uk. Case reference, decision date, judge, venue and claim categories come from structured metadata. Claimant and respondent names are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Outcomes and compensation are not yet populated for every case — see how the data is built.