Case 1807536/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v SSP Security Ltd and others — 2020
- Case reference
- 1807536/2019
- Decision date
- 21 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rostant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 17 February 2020 before Employment Judge Rostant sitting alone in Sheffield, the claimant withdrew the claims identified in the judgment. The tribunal therefore dismissed on withdrawal the claim that the claimant’s move from Doncaster College to R2’s premises was discriminatory, all claims against R4, and the direct discrimination and Public Interest Disclosure detriment claims relating to the decision to request the claimant’s removal from Victoria Plum against R7 only.
The judgment records no findings on the merits of any claim and makes no award of compensation or other remedy. Its effect is limited to the withdrawal-based disposal of the listed claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | A claim that the claimant’s move from Doncaster College to R2’s premises was discriminatory; dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Other | All claims against R4 were dismissed on withdrawal; the judgment does not specify the underlying heads of claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination claim based on the decision to request the claimant’s removal from Victoria Plum; against R7 only; dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | Public Interest Disclosure detriment claim based on the decision to request the claimant’s removal from Victoria Plum; against R7 only; dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.