Case 2206875/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2206875/2018
- Decision date
- 7 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris Appearances
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 6 January 2020, Employment Judge Norris dealt with the claimant's complaints of direct sex, race and disability discrimination, and sex-related harassment. The tribunal held that those complaints stood no reasonable prospect of success and struck them out.
The judgment records that the claims continuing to a hearing were for statutory and/or contractual redundancy payments and constructive unfair dismissal. Those surviving complaints were listed for hearing on 17 to 20 February 2020 before an Employment Judge sitting alone.
The decision was given orally at the hearing and the written record states that reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal held the complaint of direct sex discrimination stood no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held the complaint of direct race discrimination stood no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held the complaint of direct disability discrimination stood no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal held the sex-related harassment complaint stood no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out. | Struck out | 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.