Case 1310856/2022 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1310856/2022
- Decision date
- 9 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
- Panel members
- Mr J Sharma, Mr D McIntosh
Parties
1 namedClaimant
No attendance For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of constructive unfair dismissal, harassment related to race, direct race discrimination and victimisation. She did not attend the final hearing, but the tribunal proceeded after corresponding with her and considering her witness statement and the questions she asked the tribunal to put to the respondent's witnesses.
The tribunal dismissed the Equality Act complaints. It found that alleged acts either did not occur as alleged or were not because of race or because of the protected grievance, and that the pleaded discrimination claim was out of time. It declined to extend time, noting the absence of an explanation for the delay and prejudice to the respondent.
The tribunal also dismissed the constructive unfair dismissal complaint. It found the claimant was not entitled to treat herself as constructively dismissed and that the reason she resigned when she did was connected to an impending mediation in which she did not wish to engage.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment described the complaint as constructive unfair dismissal and dismissed it as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The complaint was harassment related to race. The tribunal found the respondent did not subject the claimant to harassment related to race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaint was direct race discrimination. The tribunal found the respondent did not directly discriminate against the claimant on the ground of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The respondent accepted the claimant's grievance of 3 January 2022 was a protected act, but the tribunal found the respondent did not victimise her. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- Glasgow City Council v Zafar
- Madarassy v Nomura
- Chief Constable of Kent v Bowler
- Barclays Bank Plc v Kapur
- Parr v MSR Partners LLP
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Arthur v London Eastern Railway Ltd
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti
- De Lacey v Wechseln Ltd
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.