Case 1306693/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1306693/2020
- Decision date
- 4 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woffenden
- Panel members
- Mr K Palmer, Mr R Virdee
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms S Patel, brought a race discrimination claim against the British Broadcasting Corporation arising from three matters: the lack of an opportunity to attend induction training known as 'Upfront', the failure to appoint her to one of two permanent team assistant posts, and not being asked, approached or selected to note take at the BBC Scotland site. The tribunal held that the respondent had not contravened section 39(2)(d) of the Equality Act 2010 because of race in relation to any of those matters.
Accordingly, the race discrimination claim was dismissed. The written record states that the tribunal gave its reasons orally at the hearing and that no separate written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that the respondent had not contravened section 39(2)(d) Equality Act 2010 by not giving the claimant the opportunity to attend induction training known as 'Upfront', by not appointing her to one of two permanent team assistant posts, or by not asking, approaching or selecting her to note take at the BBC Scotland site, because of her race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 39(2)(d) 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.