Case 1300349/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1300349/2020
- Decision date
- 2 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dimbylow Members
- Panel members
- Mrs DP Hill, Mr M Pearson
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was conducted remotely by CVP during the coronavirus pandemic before Employment Judge Dimbylow, Mrs DP Hill and Mr M Pearson. The tribunal unanimously recorded that, by consent, the claimant's claim for discrimination because of pregnancy and maternity under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant.
The tribunal then found that the claimant's direct sex discrimination claim under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 was not well-founded, failed and was dismissed. It also found that the claimant's indirect sex discrimination claim under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 was not well-founded, failed and was dismissed. No monetary remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Dismissed by consent upon the claimant's withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination claim found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.