Case 1405772/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Dr J Kenney v University of Surrey — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405772/2020
- Decision date
- 16 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Panel members
- Ms F Betts, Ms A Crosby
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr J Kenney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Anstis, sitting with Ms F Betts and Ms A Crosby, heard Dr J Kenney's case against the University of Surrey at Reading by CVP on 26-29 November and 2, 3, 5, 6, 10 and 16 December 2024. The written record states that the claimant's claims were dismissed.
The extracted judgment text does not set out separate findings on the individual claims or any remedy award. It is a brief record of disposal only, and no further reasoning appears in the supplied text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories supplied in the case context; the extracted judgment text itself only states that the claimant's claims are dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories supplied in the case context; the extracted judgment text itself only states that the claimant's claims are dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories supplied in the case context; the extracted judgment text itself only states that the claimant's claims are dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.