Case 1300108/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr J Munro (Solicitor) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1300108/2020
- Decision date
- 29 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Dr G Hammersley, Mr R Virdee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final merits hearing in Birmingham on 21 to 28 April 2021, before Employment Judge Perry with Dr G Hammersley and Mr R Virdee, the tribunal recorded that the claimant’s direct discrimination complaint identified in item 1 of the Scott schedule was dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal then dismissed the remaining complaints. It found that the claimant was not discriminated against contrary to Part 5 of the Equality Act 2010, and it dismissed her complaints of harassment, direct discrimination and victimisation. The judgment records no separate remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination complaint identified in item 1 of the Scott schedule; dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Remaining direct discrimination complaint(s) dismissed after the tribunal found the claimant was not discriminated against contrary to Part 5 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment dismissed as part of the remaining complaints. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Complaint of victimisation dismissed as part of the remaining complaints. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.