Case 1403472/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Rayson v Taunton School and Taunton School Educational Charity Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403472/2019
- Decision date
- 22 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Bristol Employment Tribunal hearing on 22 January 2020 before Employment Judge J Bax, the Claimant, Ms V Rayson, was represented by Miss A Macey and the Respondents by Ms R Streets. The judgment records the First Respondent as Taunton School and the Second Respondent as Taunton School Educational Charity Limited.
The tribunal recorded that the claims of pregnancy/maternity discrimination, sex discrimination, detriment as a result of a flexible working application, and breach of contract against the First Respondent were dismissed upon their withdrawal by the Claimant. The judgment does not contain any findings on the substantive merits of those claims.
No monetary award was made, and the written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing. No further reasoning, legal test, or remedy calculation is set out in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that this claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that this claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Flexible working | The judgment describes this as a detriment claim arising from a flexible working application and says it was dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that this claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.