Case 1802008/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paul Bray-Menezes v Jacobs UK Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1802008/2020
- Decision date
- 14 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Paul Bray-Menezes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Leeds on 6 July 2020 before Employment Judge T R Smith, the tribunal declared that Mr Paul Bray-Menezes's complaint of like work with Ms Vanessa Kettlestring under section 65(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010 was well founded. The declaration covered the period from 01 January 2018 to 31 January 2020.
The tribunal also found that the claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was well founded. The written record states that the reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The respondent did not attend.
Remedy was not determined in this judgment. The tribunal recorded that remedy would be decided on a later date to be notified to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The tribunal declared the claimant's complaint of like work with Ms Vanessa Kettlestring under section 65(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010, for the period 01 January 2018 to 31 January 2020, to be well founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was well founded. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.65(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.