Claimant v West London NHS Trust

The tribunal found that comments made by Charles Oppong constituted harassment on the grounds of age. The conduct was unwanted and had the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her.

The tribunal found that comments made by Charles Oppong constituted harassment on the grounds of sex. The conduct was unwanted and had the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her.

The tribunal found that the evidence did not establish that the claimant was subjected to harassment related to race. The conduct complained of was not sufficiently connected to the protected characteristic of race or did not meet the statutory test for harassment.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not treated less favourably because of her age. The evidence did not establish that age was the reason for the treatment complained of, or there was no appropriate comparator showing less favourable treatment.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not treated less favourably because of her race. The evidence did not establish that race was the reason for the treatment complained of against either respondent, or there was no appropriate comparator showing less favourable treatment.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not treated less favourably because of her sex. The evidence did not establish that sex was the reason for the treatment complained of, or there was no appropriate comparator showing less favourable treatment.

The tribunal found that the claimant had not done a protected act or, if she had, was not subjected to a detriment because of that protected act. The respondents did not subject the claimant to detrimental treatment by reason of her having done a protected act under the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal found that the claimant was not subjected to a detriment for making a protected disclosure. Either no protected disclosure was made, or the detriment was not on the ground that the claimant had made a protected disclosure as required by the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal found that there was no unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. Either the claimant was paid all wages properly payable, or any deduction was authorised by statute or contract or the claimant had given prior written consent.