Case 1602489/2024 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Miss Stephanie Davies (2) Miss Jennifer Thomas v Bridgend County Borough Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 1602489/2024
- Decision date
- 10 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Ms M Farley, Mr M Lewis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Miss Stephanie Davies (2) Miss Jennifer Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe two claimants brought complaints of sexual harassment, harassment related to sex, and direct sex discrimination against Bridgend County Borough Council. The case was heard at Cardiff over six days in November 2025 before Employment Judge S Jenkins sitting with two non-legal members, Ms M Farley and Mr M Lewis.
The Tribunal dismissed the complaints of sexual harassment and the complaints of direct sex discrimination. The complaints of harassment related to sex were well-founded in part — two out of thirteen allegations succeeded.
As remedy, the respondent was ordered to pay each claimant £5,000 for injury to feelings plus interest of £801.90, totalling £5,801.90 each. The figures stated in the judgment are per claimant; written reasons were not provided as oral reasons were given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination complaints failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Complaints of sexual harassment failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex — well-founded in part (two of thirteen allegations succeeded) for each claimant. | Upheld | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,802
- across all upheld claims
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.