Case 1300322/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr C. Johnson (Consultant) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1300322/2020
- Decision date
- 16 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs I Fox, Mr C Ledbury
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final merits hearing in Birmingham, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints under Part 5 Equality Act 2010 that she had been harassed and directly discriminated against because of race and/or sex. It also dismissed her separate complaint that she was denied the right to a companion at her grievance meeting.
Under Part IVA Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that the claimant did not make protected disclosures qualifying for protection and that the alleged detriments and dismissal were not connected to any such disclosures. The judgment records that the reason for the claimant's dismissal was misconduct.
The tribunal also dismissed the complaint that she was wrongfully dismissed without notice. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal dismissed the Part 5 Equality Act 2010 harassment complaint and held there was no race or sex discrimination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the complaint of direct race discrimination; it grouped this with the harassment and sex discrimination complaints. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the complaint of direct sex discrimination; it grouped this with the harassment and race discrimination complaints. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Other | The tribunal held the claimant was not denied the right to a companion at her grievance meeting. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held the claimant did not make protected disclosures qualifying for Part IVA ERA 1996 and that the alleged detriments and dismissal were not connected to them; it recorded that the reason for dismissal was misconduct. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The complaint that she was wrongfully dismissed without notice was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.