Case 2201599/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Derillo v The British Library — 2025
- Case reference
- 2201599/2024
- Decision date
- 11 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nash
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr S Plummer, Mr S Pearlman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Derillo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at London Central before Employment Judge Nash with lay members Mr S Plummer and Mr S Pearlman, heard the case between 25 February and 5 March 2025. It dismissed the claimant's section 13 Equality Act 2010 direct discrimination complaint and his section 27 Equality Act 2010 victimisation complaint.
The judgment is brief and does not set out detailed findings of fact or remedy reasoning. It states only the final outcomes, namely that the respondent did not directly discriminate against the claimant and did not victimise him. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment records a finding that the respondent did not directly discriminate against the claimant contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010. The protected characteristic is inferred from the case listing, which identifies the matter as race discrimination, because the judgment itself does not restate the characteristic. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records a finding that the respondent did not victimise the claimant contrary to section 27 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.