Case 1304513/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Y Clarke v Birmingham City Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 1304513/2021
- Decision date
- 28 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs S Bannister, Mr I Morrison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Y Clarke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Birmingham before Employment Judge Flood, sitting with Mrs S Bannister and Mr I Morrison. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal dismissed the complaints of direct race discrimination under s 13 Equality Act 2010 and race related harassment under s 26 Equality Act 2010, finding that they were not well founded. The respondent's application for costs was also unsuccessful and dismissed.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment records that written reasons would only be provided if requested at the hearing or within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct race discrimination contrary to s 13 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the complaint of race related harassment contrary to s 26 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Other | The respondent's application for costs was unsuccessful and dismissed; this is not a claimant claim type in the locked taxonomy. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s 13 Equality Act 2010
- s 26 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.