Case 2220651/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2220651/2024
- Decision date
- 4 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Oliver Segal
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld the claim of harassment relating to sex based on a comment made on 4 January 2024. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant GBP 3,000 inclusive of interest as compensation for injury to feelings in respect of that claim.
The other claims of discrimination, harassment and victimisation were dismissed. The extracted judgment text does not set out the reasons for those dismissals or itemise each dismissed allegation.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The upheld claim was harassment relating to sex based on a comment made on 4 January 2024. The award was stated as inclusive of interest. | Upheld | Sex | £3,000 |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the other claims of discrimination, harassment and victimisation are dismissed, but does not itemise the dismissed discrimination claims in the extracted text. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the other claims of discrimination, harassment and victimisation are dismissed, but does not itemise the dismissed discrimination claims in the extracted text. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the other claims of discrimination, harassment and victimisation are dismissed, but does not provide further particulars in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,000
- 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.