Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust

Case Summary

Ms E Louison, disabled by Sickle Cell Anaemia and PTSD, brought claims against Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust for harassment related to race and disability, unfavourable treatment under s.15 of the Equality Act 2010, and unfair dismissal. The tribunal dismissed all claims. The claimant represented herself with her daughter's assistance.

The tribunal found that the claimant's allegations regarding annual leave carry-over, management communications during sickness absence, and the referral to Occupational Health did not constitute harassment related to race or disability, or unfavourable treatment under s.15 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal determined that the respondent's actions were consistent with its policies and that there was no evidence the conduct was related to the claimant's protected characteristics.

• •Harassment related to race
• •Harassment related to disability
• •Unfavourable treatment under s.15 Equality Act 2010
• •Unfair dismissal
• •Annual leave carry-over policy
• •Occupational Health referral
• •Management conduct during sickness absence

1 of 28 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms E Louison Respondent: Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust Heard at: East London Hearing Centre On: 17, 18 and 20 March 2026 Before: Employment Judge M Brewer Representation For the Claimant: In person For the Respondent: Mr D Kennedy, Counsel JUDGMENT The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: 1. the claimant’s claim for harassment related to race fails and is dismissed, 2. the claimant’s claim for harassment related to disability fails and is dismissed, 3. the claimant’s claim for unfavourable treatment under s.15, Equality Act 2010, fails and is dismissed, 4. the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed. REASONS Introduction 1. This case was listed for a 6-day hearing commencing on 17 March 2026. The case was presented on 17 July 2024. The claimant is disabled by reason of Sickle Cell Anaemia and PTSD. 2 of 28 2. The claimant represented herself and was assisted by her daughter. 3. The hearing started as scheduled, and we took regular breaks. At the claimant’s request we stopped early for lunch on day 1. On resumption at 2.00 pm the claimant said she was in pain but wanted to continue. I mentioned that if at any point the claimant wished to adjourn for medical reasons, she would need to provide relevant evidence. There was a further short break, but the claimant wanted to and did continue. The claimant was tired as the hearing progressed and so we ended the first day at around 2.50 pm. 4. Day 2 started at the scheduled time, 10.00 am. We had received an email from the claimant’s daughter, timed at 7.22 am, to say that the claimant had been admitted to hospital. No further details were given, and the email contained no application to adjourn. 5. I caused an email to be sent to the claimant asking for further details, incl…