Case 1301565/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Mr. R. Milvenan, solicitor — 2024
- Case reference
- 1301565/2022
- Decision date
- 22 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Members
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr. J. Sharma, Mr. K. Hutchinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the automatically unfair dismissal claim. It found that the claimant was employed on a temporary track and trace contract, that work was reducing as the contract came to an end, and that the respondent did not dismiss her because she had fallen pregnant, had a baby or taken maternity leave.
The direct race discrimination claim was dismissed. The Tribunal accepted that concerns about the claimant's spoken English were raised in the context of the call-handling role and that the claimant was counselled rather than disciplined. It also found that movements between work streams, performance monitoring, and queries about inactivity were applied for work-related reasons and were not because of race.
The pregnancy and maternity discrimination, indirect race discrimination, and unlawful deductions claims were also dismissed. The Tribunal found that the pregnancy-related allegations were either not unfavourable treatment, not because of pregnancy or maternity leave, and/or out of time; that the asserted PCP for indirect race discrimination was not applied and no group or individual disadvantage was established; and that there was no evidence of unpaid holiday pay or an unlawful deduction.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal claim under section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996 and Regulation 20 of the 1999 Regulations was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect race discrimination claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim under section 18 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deductions from wages and/or holiday pay complaint was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 20 of the 1999 Regulations
- s.18 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Allonby v Accrington and Rosendale College
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Homer
- Games v University of Kent
- Dobson v Cumbria Integrated NHS Foundation Trust
- Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice
- Rajarathan v Care UK Clinical Services Limited
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.