Case 1301818/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1301818/2019
- Decision date
- 27 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
- Panel members
- Mr J Reeves, Mr R White
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting in Birmingham before Employment Judge Gaskell with members Mr J Reeves and Mr R White, gave a unanimous judgment on 27 March 2023. It dismissed the claimant's complaints of direct race discrimination and victimisation, finding that the respondent had not acted in contravention of section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 at any material time.
It also dismissed the claimant's complaint of racial harassment, finding no contravention of section 40 of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment records that the claimant's complaints were brought pursuant to section 120 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal further dismissed the claimant's whistleblowing detriment claim under section 48(1A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, holding that it was not well-founded. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaint dismissed; the tribunal found the respondent did not act in contravention of section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 at any material time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaint dismissed; the tribunal found the respondent did not act in contravention of section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 at any material time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Racial harassment complaint dismissed; the tribunal found the respondent did not act in contravention of section 40 of the Equality Act 2010 at any material time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment complaint for making protected disclosures under section 48(1A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well-founded and 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.