Case 2205139/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Gatrell of counsel For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2205139/2023
- Decision date
- 24 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov Tribunal
- Panel members
- D Hill, L Venner
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms A Gatrell of counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously found one complaint of direct sex discrimination well-founded: the respondent failed to uphold the claimant's grievance and preferred Mr Sidhu's account. The remaining direct sex discrimination complaints were dismissed. It also upheld harassment related to sex for the office lockout in September 2022, Mr Sidhu's question on or around 31 August 2022 about whether the claimant was planning to become pregnant, and employees' derogatory comments about women, including the term 'birds' and remarks about sexual conquests; the remaining harassment complaints failed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal upheld the complaint that the respondent failed to uphold the claimant's grievance and instead preferred Mr Sidhu's account. The remaining direct sex discrimination complaints were dismissed. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex was upheld in relation to Mr Sidhu locking the claimant out of the office in September 2022, asking on or around 31 August 2022 whether she was planning to become pregnant, and employees making derogatory comments about women, including the term 'birds', and boasting about sexual conquests. The remaining harassment complaints were dismissed. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal upheld victimisation complaints concerning the raising of misconduct allegations and a five-month suspension on 14 November 2022, Mr Sparkes disciplining the claimant without attending the disciplinary hearing, imposing a 12-month written warning when six months had been recommended, and dismissing the claimant by way of her resignation. The remaining victimisation complaint was dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's breach of contract claim succeeded. The judgment does not set out a separate monetary breakdown for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £51,777
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £21,227
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.