Case 2203236/2022 · Employment Tribunal
in Person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2203236/2022
- Decision date
- 24 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Members
- Venue
- Central London
- Panel members
- Mr S McLaughlin, Mr T Robinson
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Ms K Wabara, brought complaints of unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, race harassment, direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability against her former employer, Sherlock Holmes Park Plaza Limited. She relied on physical impairments of IBS-related symptoms, IBD ulcerative colitis and fibromyalgia in her disability claims, and on being Black in her race claims. The Respondent's case was that her dismissal was by reason of redundancy, following a restructure that reduced two Finance Assistant roles to a single cluster role across two hotels.
The Tribunal found that there was a genuine redundancy situation and that the Claimant was pooled with her counterpart, Ms Compares, and assessed through an interview and a blind-marked MS Excel skills test. The Respondent held four individual consultation meetings, provided selection criteria and interview feedback, and offered several alternative roles including Cluster Income Auditor, Cluster Credit Controller and a Senior AP Clerk role, at least one of which the Tribunal considered suitable. The Tribunal concluded the Respondent's warning, consultation, selection and search for alternative employment were all within the band of reasonable responses, and that the dismissal was fair.
The race and disability discrimination and harassment complaints were dismissed. The Tribunal rejected the Claimant's suggestion that the redundancy process was a sham to remove her from the business, finding the process to be transparent and fair. A remedy hearing was not required as all claims failed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found the Respondent dismissed the Claimant fairly for redundancy. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Race-related harassment claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Both direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey
- Equality Act 2010 section 13
- Equality Act 2010 section 123
- Equality Act 2010 section 6
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.