Case 1301190/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1301190/2021
- Decision date
- 14 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Members
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr. R. Virdee, Mr. M. Cronin
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of direct sexual orientation discrimination, harassment related to sexual orientation, and victimisation. The tribunal found that the claimant identified as bisexual, but rejected the allegation that the respondent had a deliberate policy of denying him management experience or promotion opportunities because of sexual orientation.
The tribunal found that some comments by colleagues in about 2017 were related to sexual orientation and had the effect of creating a humiliating or offensive environment for the claimant, but those allegations were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal also found that later workplace management decisions, interview outcomes, and grievance-related matters were not because of sexual orientation or protected acts.
The direct sexual orientation discrimination complaints were dismissed, apart from one allegation dismissed upon withdrawal. The harassment complaints and all victimisation complaints were dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The direct sexual orientation discrimination allegation dated 31 August 2018 concerning comments by Ian Grosvenor about the claimant's performance was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sexual orientation | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | All remaining direct sexual orientation discrimination complaints were found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found some comments related to sexual orientation had the effect of creating a humiliating or offensive environment, but the 2018 harassment allegations were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. Other harassment allegations were not well founded. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Victimisation | All victimisation complaints were found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
18 references- Equality Act 2010 section 13
- Equality Act 2010 section 26
- Equality Act 2010 section 27
- Equality Act 2010 section 39
- Equality Act 2010 section 123
- Equality Act 2010 section 136
- Equality Act 2010 section 140B
- Pemberton v Inwood 2018 ICR 1291
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Amnesty International v Ahmed 2009 IRLR 884
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board (2012) IRLR 870
- Igen Limited v Wong 2005 EWCA Civ 142
- Madarassy v Nomura International PLC (2007) ICR 867
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC (2013) ICR 337
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner 2002 EWCA Civ 1686
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust 2021 EWCA Civ 23
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble 1997 IRLR 36
- Bexley Community Centre (trading as Leisure Link) v Robertson 2003 EWCA Civ 576
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.