Case 1308547/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Katie Vachon v Vibha Samani Health and Beauty — 2024
- Case reference
- 1308547/2023
- Decision date
- 20 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Connolly
- Venue
- West Midlands
- Panel members
- Ms H Astill, Mr M Pitt
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Katie Vachon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously found that one complaint about the handling of the claimant's request to vary her hours was well-founded. The successful complaint was that the respondent failed to deal with the request in a reasonable manner by refusing an extension of time in which to appeal, and the respondent was ordered to pay four weeks' pay, amounting to GBP 1003.56.
The Tribunal dismissed the complaints of indirect sex discrimination, disability discrimination arising from disability, unfair dismissal, and the remaining flexible working complaints. The direct sex discrimination complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. The written judgment records the outcomes only; reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible working | The upheld complaint was that the respondent failed to deal with the claimant's request to vary her hours of work in a reasonable manner by refusing an extension of time in which to appeal. | Upheld | — | £1,004 |
| Sex discrimination | The complaint of indirect sex discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Flexible working | The complaint that the respondent failed to deal with the claimant's request to vary her hours of work in a reasonable manner by failing to consider her childcare or breastfeeding needs was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Flexible working | The complaint that the respondent's decision to reject the claimant's application to vary her hours was based on incorrect facts was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,004
- across all upheld claims
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.