Case 1802616/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Tracey Harrison-Racey v East Riding of Yorkshire Council — 2021
- Case reference
- 1802616/2021
- Decision date
- 2 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Drake
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Tracey Harrison-Racey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was listed at Leeds on 2 July 2021 before Employment Judge R S Drake and was heard in private by telephone. The claimant, Mrs Tracey Harrison-Racey, appeared in person assisted by her husband, and the respondent, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, appeared through counsel.
Before the preliminary hearing, the claimant's husband emailed to confirm withdrawal of the claims, and the tribunal clarified that position directly with the claimant. The respondent consented to withdrawal and confirmed that no application for costs was being made.
The tribunal therefore dismissed on withdrawal the unfair dismissal claim, the allegations described as direct associative disability discrimination and/or victimisation, and the claim that the claimant suffered a detriment because of claiming flexible working. No merits findings or monetary award were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded this unfair dismissal claim as dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant with the respondent's consent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment grouped the allegations as direct associative disability discrimination and/or victimisation; this entry records the disability discrimination limb, which was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant with the respondent's consent. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Flexible working | The claim that the claimant suffered a detriment because of claiming flexible working was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant with the respondent's consent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.