Case 2207848/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207848/2020
- Decision date
- 21 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns Representation
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn a reserved judgment sent on 21 January 2022, Employment Judge E Burns recorded that the listed allegations were struck out for the reasons given in the Deposit Order made in the same case on the same date. The judgment itself does not set out separate substantive merits findings beyond that cross-reference to the deposit order.
The struck-out matters concerned, first, the passing of materials relating to the disciplinary investigation interview, including a recording and transcripts, to those transcribing it, managers dealing with the disciplinary hearing, and solicitors and legal advisers. That allegation had been brought as direct sex discrimination and sex-related or sexual-conduct harassment.
The second struck-out matter concerned the refusal to allow the claimant to raise a grievance or complaint of sexual harassment until after the disciplinary process had been concluded. That allegation was also brought as direct sex discrimination and sex-related or sexual-conduct harassment. No remedy award is recorded in this judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records that allegations pleaded as direct sex discrimination were struck out for the reasons given in the Deposit Order made in the same case on the same date. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The judgment records that allegations pleaded as sex-related harassment and sexual-conduct harassment were struck out for the reasons given in the Deposit Order made in the same case on the same date. | Struck out | — | — |
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.