Case 2201760/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs AM Knott v Caldwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201760/2019
- Decision date
- 17 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Isaacson Members
- Venue
- Central London
- Panel members
- Ms J Clark, Ms L Jones
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs AM Knott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Central London on 16 and 17 January 2020 before Employment Judge A Isaacson with Ms J Clark and Ms L Jones. It gave a unanimous decision on the claimant's sex discrimination complaints against Caldwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP.
The claimant's direct discrimination claim was dismissed. The tribunal also considered the respondent's policy of not reducing its hours targets for annual bonuses to reflect time spent on holiday, referred to in the judgment as the PCP. It found that the PCP put women at a particular disadvantage when compared with men.
Although that disadvantage was established, the tribunal held that the respondent was able to show that the PCP was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For that reason, the indirect sex discrimination complaint also failed. No financial award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found the respondent's policy of not reducing hours targets for annual bonuses to reflect holiday time put women at a particular disadvantage compared with men, but held that the PCP was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.