Case 1805393/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Walker Respondent 1: Support Clean Limited Respondent 2: Simon Dalton HELD BY: CVP v Mr W Lane, Solicitor — 2021
- Case reference
- 1805393/2020
- Decision date
- 26 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman Members
- Panel members
- Ms G M Fleming, Miss L Fawcett
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Walker Respondent 1: Support Clean Limited Respondent 2: Simon Dalton HELD BY: CVP
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal identified two claims of direct sex discrimination and one claim of harassment related to sex. On 24 February 2020, the claimant said she had asked for time off for a smear test and was asked to work the next day. The tribunal found the exchange to be amicable, with Mr Dalton saying he would try to find someone else if necessary, and later exchanging texts with the claimant. Although the complaint was presented late, the tribunal extended time under section 123 because of the claimant's health concerns, the pandemic, furlough, and childcare responsibilities, but it still dismissed the claim because the conduct was too uncontentious to amount to less favourable treatment.
The upheld direct sex discrimination claim related to 26 June 2020. By then the claimant had been placed on furlough and later made redundant. When she telephoned Mr Dalton after hearing that a full-time cleaner had resigned, he told her there was no part-time role and the vacancy was full time. The tribunal found that Mr Dalton referred to his sister's difficulties with childcare and that, in context, he was using that comparison to deny the claimant the possibility of employment. It found the claimant was treated less favourably because of concerns that she would not be able to manage because of childcare, and that a hypothetical male comparator would not have been treated in the same way.
The harassment claim based on the same 26 June conversation was dismissed. The tribunal accepted the facts found for the discrimination claim, but held that they did not amount to unwanted conduct with the purpose or effect required by section 26 EA 2010. It said the conduct could amount to sex discrimination on that date, but not harassment, and it did not accept that the statutory effects were made out. The judgment records that the matter was moved to a remedy hearing on 16 June 2021 and that the claimant was ordered to bring an up-to-date schedule of loss.
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 | The tribunal accepted the claim was out of time but extended time under section 123 EA 2010 because of the claimant's health concerns, the pandemic, furlough, and childcare responsibilities. It then dismissed the claim on the merits, finding the 24 February 2020 exchange too uncontentious to amount to less favourable treatment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal upheld the direct sex discrimination claim arising from the 26 June 2020 conversation. It found Mr Dalton denied the claimant the chance to return to a full-time role because of concerns that she would not manage because of childcare, and that a hypothetical male comparator would not have been treated in that way. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found the conduct on 26 June 2020 did not amount to unwanted conduct with the purpose or effect required by section 26 EA 2010. It accepted the same conversation supported the sex discrimination finding but held that harassment required something different and was not made out. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13(1) Equality Act 2010
- s.26(1) Equality Act 2010
- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension
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.