Case 2219602/2024 · Employment Tribunal
A Boyle v Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2219602/2024
- Decision date
- 3 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms S Campbell, Ms J Marshall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Boyle
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously held that the Claimant succeeded in her complaint that she was discriminated against contrary to section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 when, between 3 May 2022 and 14 July 2022, the Respondent failed to consult her regarding the removal of part of her role. The Tribunal also granted a just and equitable extension for that complaint.
The judgment states that the rest of the Claimant's complaints failed and were dismissed. The provided one-page judgment does not set out remedy figures or identify the dismissed complaints in more detail.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The Tribunal held that the complaint under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 succeeded in relation to failure to consult the Claimant about removal of part of her role between 3 May 2022 and 14 July 2022. The judgment does not state any remedy. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the rest of the Claimant's complaints fail and are dismissed, but the one-page text provided does not identify those complaints individually. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.