Case 2207093/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2207093/2018
- Decision date
- 25 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr D Schofield, Mr J Carroll
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningA tribunal sitting at London Central on 17, 18, 19, 22, 24 and 25 July 2019, before Employment Judge Glennie with Mr D Schofield and Mr J Carroll, unanimously dismissed the claimant's complaints for a redundancy payment, unfair constructive dismissal, direct race discrimination, and direct sex discrimination or harassment related to sex.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing. It does not set out any separate remedy award, and the judgment records dismissal of all complaints only. The decision was dated 1 August 2019 and sent to the parties on 2 August 2019.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment records this as a complaint of unfair constructive dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment phrases this complaint as 'direct sex discrimination or harassment related to sex' and dismisses it in that combined form. | Dismissed | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.