Case 1301829/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ennis (solicitor) For the v Mr Scuplak (Human Resources Adviser) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1301829/2019
- Decision date
- 15 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Members
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Dr G Hammersely, Ms R Addision
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ennis (solicitor) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat in Birmingham before Employment Judge Johnson with members Dr G Hammersely and Ms R Addision. It heard the case on 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 September 2020. The judgment records that the claimant was represented by Mr Ennis and the respondent by Mr Scuplak.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints of direct race discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, race harassment under section 26, and race victimisation under section 27. In each instance it stated that the complaint was not well founded and therefore unsuccessful. The tribunal also dismissed the complaint of being subjected to a detriment in respect of taking time off for dependents under sections 57A, 47C and 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, again finding it not well founded.
The claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was also dismissed as not well founded. The written record states that the tribunal gave oral reasons at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination on grounds of race, contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010, was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment on grounds of race, contrary to section 26 Equality Act 2010, was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation on grounds of race, contrary to section 27 Equality Act 2010, was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Other | The complaint of being subjected to a detriment in respect of taking time off for dependents, contrary to sections 57A, 47C and 48 Employment Rights Act 1996, was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The complaint of constructive unfair dismissal, in accordance with section 95(1)(c) 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.