Case 2216716/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2216716/2024
- Decision date
- 15 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O Segal KC
- Panel members
- Ms T Shaah, Mr A Adolphus
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London Central, Employment Judge O Segal KC sat with Ms T Shaah and Mr A Adolphus and heard the case by CVP on 1 to 4 April 2025. The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint that, on about 16 May 2023, Mr Zaman criticised her time management skills by reference to her being a mother and her childcare responsibilities. It found the respondent liable for that sex discrimination / harassment-related complaint and ordered payment of £1,500.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's remaining claims, including those in relation to her dismissal. The judgment records a single award of £1,500 and does not break that sum down into separate heads of loss.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal upheld the claimant's sex discrimination / harassment-related complaint arising from the incident on about 16 May 2023, when Mr Zaman criticised her time management skills by reference to her being a mother and her childcare responsibilities. | Upheld | Sex | £1,500 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment rejects the claimant's remaining claims, including those in relation to her dismissal; the extracted text does not set out the precise legal label for every rejected claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,500
- across all upheld claims
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.