Cedar Hope Care Service

Case Summary

The claimant's complaints of gender reassignment discrimination, whistleblowing, and victimisation were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant's complaints of direct and indirect discrimination because of religion or belief were not dismissed and will proceed, provided the claimant actively pursues those complaints and complies with the tribunal's orders.

The tribunal struck out the gender reassignment discrimination, whistleblowing, and victimisation complaints because they had no reasonable prospect of success, while allowing the religion or belief discrimination complaints to proceed to a full hearing.

• •gender reassignment discrimination
• •whistleblowing
• •victimisation
• •direct discrimination because of religion or belief
• •indirect discrimination because of religion or belief

PHCM Order 1 of 2 September 2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr A Gharabli Respondent: Cedar Hope Care Service JUDGMENT 1. The complaints of discrimination because of gender reassignment, whistleblowing, and victimisation have no reasonable prospect of success and are struck out under rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. 2. The claimant’s complaints of direct and indirect discrimination because of religion or belief are not dismissed and will proceed, provided that the claimant actively pursues those complaints and complies with the orders of the tribunal. REASONS 1. A preliminary hearing took place on 13 June 2025. The claimant did not attend. The judge identified at the hearing that the claimant’s complaints of gender reassignment discrimination, whistleblowing and victimisation were not made clear in the claim form and that the further clarification which the claimant provided did not show claims with reasonable prospects of success. 2. The judge made an order that the complaints of gender reassignment discrimination, whistleblowing, and victimisation would be struck out unless by 11 July 2025 the claimant informed the respondent and the tribunal why those complaints should not be struck out. The claimant failed to provide any information in response to that order. 3. Grounds for striking out the claim under rule 38(1)(a) apply and it is in accordance with rule 3 and the overriding objective to strike out the complaints of gender reassignment discrimination, whistleblowing, and victimisation. These complaints as detailed in the claim form have no reasonable prospect of success. 4. Complaints of direct and indirection discrimination because of religion or belief have been identified from the claim form and from the further clarification provided by the claimant and are recorded in the case summary sent to the PHCM Order 2 of 2 September 2023 parti…