Ms S Skelton and Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust

Case Summary

The Claimant's claims for discrimination on the ground of race, discrimination on the ground of age, and harassment related to race are not well founded and are dismissed.

The tribunal heard evidence from both parties and found that the claimant's claims for race discrimination, age discrimination, and race-related harassment lacked factual or legal merit and were therefore dismissed.

• •key legal issues/arguments

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss M Moore Respondents: (1) Ms S Skelton (2) Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust Heard at: East London Hearing Centre On: 7 – 10 October; 1 and 12 December 2025 Before: Employment Judge L Townley Members: Miss S Harwood Ms J Isherwood Representation For the Claimant: In person For the Respondents: Ms J Franklin (of Counsel) RESERVED JUDGMENT 1. Having heard from the Claimant and the Respondents, it is the unanimous decision of the Tribunal that the Claimant’s claims for discrimination on the ground of race, discrimination on the ground of age, and harassment related to race are not well founded and are dismissed. REASONS The Claimant’s Claims 1. The Claimant contacted ACAS on 29.02.24 (Day A) and was issued with the ACAS Early Conciliation certificate on 04.03.24 (Day B). An ET1 was filed with the Tribunal on 11.03.24. The Claimant brings the following claims: 2 (a) Direct Age Discrimination (s 13 Equality Act 2010 (‘EqA’)); (b) Direct Race Discrimination (s 13 EqA); (c) Harassment related to Race (s 26 EqA). Procedural History 2. At a preliminary hearing on 17.01.25, EJ Elgot set the case down for seven days. The Claimant was represented at that hearing, but she appeared in person thereafter. At a preliminary hearing on 30.09.25 before EJ Allen KC it was directed that the hearing be reduced to four days by agreement of the parties on application by the Respondent’s solicitors. At the full merits hearing there were a number of preliminary issues and the evidence took three full days. The Claimant was also afforded a half day to review the evidence and prepare her closing submissions because she was unrepresented. It was therefore necessary to reserve judgment and to extend the overall length of the hearing by two further days (from which the pa…