Case 1303159/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C McLean v Aspiration Training Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303159/2022
- Decision date
- 14 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
- Venue
- Midlands West
- Panel members
- Mr T Liburd, Mr P Wilkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C McLean
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant withdrew her unfair dismissal complaint, and the tribunal recorded that claim as dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment then identified two Equality Act contraventions: on 16 December 2021 the respondent harassed the claimant by accusing her of being aggressive without explanation, contrary to section 40 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal also found that on 2 February 2022 the respondent victimised the claimant by terminating her probation period and dismissing her, contrary to section 39 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant's remaining complaints of harassment, discrimination and victimisation were dismissed. Remedy was left to be considered at a further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant withdrew this complaint; the tribunal recorded it as dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found a contravention of section 40 Equality Act 2010 on 16 December 2021 when the respondent accused the claimant of being aggressive without explanation. Race is inferred from the case listing, as the headnote itself does not restate the protected characteristic. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found a contravention of section 39 Equality Act 2010 on 2 February 2022 when the respondent terminated the claimant's probation period and dismissed her. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The headnote states that the claimant's remaining complaints of harassment, discrimination and victimisation failed and were dismissed. Race is inferred from the case listing, as the extracted headnote does not identify the particular discrimination particulars. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.