Case 2202067/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Dr M Morgan v The Secretary of State for Justice and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2202067/2021
- Decision date
- 23 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Akhtar Members
- Panel members
- Mr D Kendall, Mr P Madelin
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Dr M Morgan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of direct sex and race discrimination, harassment related to sex and race, and victimisation. The complaints concerned matters including investigations into the claimant, criticism of her research, disclosure of information, alleged false accusations, alleged policy breaches, access to publicly available social media, grievance handling, reward and recognition, intellectual property, research projects, and alleged sharing of misinformation.
The tribunal dismissed the claims. In the extracted conclusions, it found that several pleaded matters were not established, that accessing publicly available social media was reasonable management action, and that the claimant had not shown the required causal link between the alleged treatment and sex, race, or protected acts. The tribunal also concluded that, because none of the claims amounted to discriminatory acts, there was no continuing course of conduct; it would not have been just and equitable to extend time for claims before 16 December 2020.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal held that the complaints of harassment related to sex were not well-founded and dismissed them. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal held that the complaints of harassment related to race were not well-founded and dismissed them. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal held that the complaints of direct sex discrimination were not well-founded and dismissed them. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that the complaints of direct race discrimination were not well-founded and dismissed them. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal held that the complaints of victimisation were not well-founded and dismissed them. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Equality Act 2010 section 13
- Equality Act 2010 section 26
- Equality Act 2010 section 123
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.