Case 1401461/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Cynthia Elethia McKenzie v Simon Neil Coppack — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401461/2024
- Decision date
- 6 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Katherine Gibb
- Panel members
- Lynn Fellows, Dr Catherine Hole
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Cynthia Elethia McKenzie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Bristol Employment Tribunal by CVP on 22 and 23 April 2025 before Employment Judge Katherine Gibb with lay members Lynn Fellows and Dr Catherine Hole. The claimant, Cynthia Elethia McKenzie, appeared in person with support from Bethany Angell as McKenzie Friend, and the respondent, Simon Neil Coppack, appeared in person.
The written judgment records the tribunal's unanimous decision that all four claims were not well founded and were dismissed. Those claims were unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, and breach of contract relating to notice.
The record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No separate remedy award is recorded in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment describes this as a claim for direct discrimination on the grounds of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment describes this as harassment related to race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim is described as breach of contract relating to notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.