Case 1300577/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Dr. Ma. Elena Hernandez-Hernandez v University of Warwick — 2020
- Case reference
- 1300577/2021
- Decision date
- 4 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Findlay Sitting
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs B. Hicks, Mr P. Simpson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr. Ma. Elena Hernandez-Hernandez
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed on successive fixed-term research contracts. The tribunal found that the claims of indirect sex and race discrimination, less favourable treatment as a fixed-term employee, and breach of contract for notice pay were not well founded and dismissed them.
The holiday pay claim succeeded. The tribunal found that in the relevant leave year the claimant had taken no more than 14 days of leave and was entitled to be paid for the remaining 20 days.
The unfair dismissal claim also succeeded. The tribunal found that there was a 65% chance the claimant's employment would have been extended for a further two weeks had the respondent acted fairly; the remedy judgment made no basic award because a redundancy payment had already been received.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect race discrimination was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Fixed-term employee regulations | Less favourable treatment under the Fixed Term Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim concerned notice pay and was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to be paid for 20 days of outstanding holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £2,840 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found a 65% chance that the claimant's employment would have been extended for a further two weeks had the respondent acted fairly. | Upheld | — | £1,444 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,283
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,444
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
11 references- section 14 of the Equality Act 2010
- Ishola v Transport for London
- Nottingham City Transport Limited v Harvey
- regulation 3 of the Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002
- regulation 7 of the Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002
- regulation 2 of the Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002
- Webley v Department of Work and Pensions [2005] ICR 577
- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 115 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 119 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 122(4)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.