Case 2205038/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the 1st, 4th & 5th v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2205038/2023
- Decision date
- 21 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie Members
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms M Pillfold, Mr T Harrington-Roberts
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the 1st, 4th & 5th
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant made complaints of direct discrimination because of sex, harassment related to sex, victimisation and detriment for making protected disclosures. The tribunal refused a further postponement application and proceeded with the hearing after considering the claimant's medical evidence, previous postponement decisions, the respondents' position, and the circumstances at the hearing.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not established the factual basis for the allegations relied on. It accepted evidence that the claimant's 5 December 2022 complaints were raised in general terms about conduct by men and women and did not amount to protected disclosures or protected acts.
The tribunal also found no evidential basis that the first respondent's handling of the claimant's complaints was influenced by sex, and found that the allegation about annual leave was not made out because the claimant did take leave between 9 and 16 December. All complaints against all respondents were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant complained of direct discrimination because of sex and that all complaints were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the claimant complained of harassment related to sex and that all complaints were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found that the claimant had not established protected acts and dismissed the victimisation complaints. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the claimant had not established protected disclosures and dismissed the detriment complaints. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 110 of the Equality Act
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.