Case 1300608/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Ms C Whelan (director) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1300608/2019
- Decision date
- 17 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs L Evans, Mr J Kelly
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting in Birmingham on 7 to 11 and 14 June 2021 before Employment Judge Perry, Mrs L Evans and Mr J Kelly, held that the claimant was not discriminated against contrary to Part 5 of the Equality Act 2010. It dismissed her complaints of pregnancy/maternity discrimination, direct sex discrimination, indirect sex discrimination and harassment related to sex.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant’s complaint concerning a flexible working request made pursuant to section 80F of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and her complaint of constructive unfair dismissal. The judgment records that these complaints were not well founded. No monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination complaint dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination complaint dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Flexible working | Complaint concerning a flexible working request under section 80F of the Employment Rights Act 1996 dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal complaint 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.