Case 1401949/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1401949/2019
- Decision date
- 18 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Richardson Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Bristol on 4 and 5 February 2021 before Employment Judge A Richardson, dismissed all three claims brought by Mr M Warlinski against MGS Laboratories Limited. The judgment states that the claim for direct discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed, the harassment claim under section 26 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed, and the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and was dismissed.
The extracted judgment record does not contain the tribunal's oral reasons, because the written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. As a result, the available text records the outcomes but does not set out the factual findings or detailed reasoning that led to those outcomes.
The public listing for the case identifies the discrimination element as race discrimination, which is consistent with treating the discrimination claims as relating to race. No remedy was awarded in the extracted record.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment dismisses the claim of direct discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The extracted text does not repeat the protected characteristic, but the published case listing identifies the matter as race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment dismisses the harassment claim under section 26 Equality Act 2010. The extracted text does not specify the protected characteristic, but the case listing identifies the discrimination component as race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and dismissed it. | 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.