Case 1304180/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In Person – 10 September 2024 No Attendance – 11 September 2024 For the v Mr C Su (Manager) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304180/2023
- Decision date
- 11 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Mr D Faulconbridge, Mr S Woodall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person – 10 September 2024 No Attendance – 11 September 2024 For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent did not, at any time material to the claim, act towards the claimant in contravention of section 39 of the Equality Act 2010. It dismissed the claimant’s complaints of harassment related to race and religion and belief under section 120 of the Act.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent. On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. The written record does not set out any monetary award, and none was made in the judgment record provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment states that the claimant’s complaints of harassment related to race and/or religion and belief were dismissed; this entry reflects the race element of that wording. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the claimant’s complaints of harassment related to race and/or religion and belief were dismissed; this entry reflects the religion or belief element of that wording. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent and therefore the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- s.120 Equality Act 2010
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.