Case 1406301/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Grigorescu v Western Power Distribution (South West) plc — 2022
- Case reference
- 1406301/2020
- Decision date
- 20 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lowe
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Mr C Williams, Ms D England
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed all live claims and made no monetary award. It found that the claimant did not tell Justin Blundell in March 2020 that she had been the subject of sex discrimination, and that no document complaining of sex discrimination was sent between 21 July and 16 August 2020. The first protected act it accepted was the oral complaint of sex discrimination made at the grievance meeting on 31 July 2020.
The victimisation claim failed because the Taunton and Crewkerne recruitment decisions had already been made before 31 July 2020. As to the Training Support Assistant role, the interview took place on 3 August 2020, but the tribunal found the interviewers did not know about the grievance at that time and there was no evidence that the refusal to appoint was because of the protected act. The tribunal also found the interview scoring process was fair and objective.
The direct discrimination claims were also dismissed. For the February 2020 Team Support appointment, the tribunal found Mr P was not a suitable comparator because he was a long-serving permanent employee seeking redeployment, and it accepted that the claimant did not obtain the permanent role because of interview performance rather than sex. For the May and June 2020 Team Support roles and the July/August 2020 Training Support Assistant role, the tribunal found that the candidates were scored in the same way, that the claimant's scores reflected her answers, and that there was no evidence from which it could infer race or age discrimination.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Dismissed; the tribunal found no protected act in March 2020 and no written sex discrimination complaint sent between 21 July and 16 August 2020, but accepted that the first protected act was the oral grievance on 31 July 2020. The earlier Taunton and Crewkerne decisions predated that date, and the August 2020 interviewers were found not to know about the grievance. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed; this claim concerned the February 2020 Team Support appointment. The tribunal found Mr P was not an appropriate comparator because he was a long-serving permanent employee seeking redeployment, and it accepted that the permanent role was awarded after a fair interview process rather than because of sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed; this covered the May and June 2020 Team Support roles and the July/August 2020 Training Support Assistant role. The tribunal found the interview processes were fair and objective, the scoring reflected the answers given, and there was no evidence from which it could infer race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed; this covered the May and June 2020 Team Support roles and the July/August 2020 Training Support Assistant role. The tribunal found the interview processes were fair and objective, the scoring reflected the answers given, and there was no evidence from which it could infer age discrimination. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.27 Equality Act 2010 victimisation
- Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Constabulary v Bailey
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport effective cause test
- s.13 Equality Act 2010 direct discrimination
- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Igen v Wong burden of proof
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Shamoon v Royal Ulster Constabulary
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.