Case 1400480/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ethan Morgan v Hermes Parcelnet Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400480/2022
- Decision date
- 20 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke Dated
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Dr C Hole, Mr C Williams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ethan Morgan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim of direct discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment.
The tribunal found that the respondent harassed the claimant contrary to s.26 of the Equality Act 2010. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and the written judgment records the outcome and remedy rather than detailed factual findings.
The respondent was ordered to pay £22,596.39. The schedule comprised loss of earnings after a 25% deduction and Universal Credit deductions, interest on that loss, an injury to feelings award of £18,000, and interest on that injury to feelings award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender reassignment discrimination | The judgment states that the claim of direct discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Gender reassignment | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the respondent harassed the claimant contrary to s.26 of the Equality Act 2010. The protected characteristic for the harassment finding is inferred from the only characteristic expressly named in the judgment: gender reassignment. | Upheld | Gender reassignment | £22,596 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,596
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,613
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.