Case 1403726/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Hodgkin of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 1403726/2019
- Decision date
- 3 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Mrs P J Skillin, Mr T M Smaldon
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mrs Hodgkin of Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Team Member employed since 4 August 2003, complained after a customer made a racially offensive remark in the Club on 19 May 2018. The tribunal found that Mr Green spoke to the claimant, contacted the customer, and arranged temporary changes to the claimant’s shifts so she could avoid the customer. When the claimant later gave further detail, Mrs O’Neill decided that the customer should receive a formal warning and warned that any repetition could lead to exclusion from the Club.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment treated the complaint as unfair constructive dismissal and held there was no fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, so the resignation could not be construed as a dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | A direct race discrimination claim was brought. The tribunal recorded that the claimant conceded no manager had treated her less favourably because she was Black, and found no evidential basis for race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13(1) Equality Act 2010
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- implied term of trust and confidence
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation
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.