Case 2301384/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301384/2019
- Decision date
- 14 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Employment Judge
- Panel members
- Mr C Mardner, Ms S Khawaja
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs Barbara Thomas, was employed by the respondent school as HR Manager from 19 January 2015 until 4 March 2019. She brought claims for racial harassment, constructive dismissal and equal pay. The equal pay claim was withdrawn during cross-examination. The respondent was represented by counsel; the claimant appeared in person. The tribunal comprised Employment Judge Balogun with Mr C Mardner and Ms S Khawaja.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | Withdrawn during the claimant's cross-examination; the judgment records the equal pay claim as dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed as out of time. The tribunal also found that, if time had been extended, the alleged conduct would not have met the statutory test for harassment and the other pleaded incidents were not sufficiently particularised. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Rejected on the merits. The tribunal found no breach of contract or of the implied term of trust and confidence, no valid last straw, and also said the claimant would in any event have affirmed any earlier breach by agreeing to remain on after her notice period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.26 EqA
- s.123 EqA
- s.136 EqA
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International PLC
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju
- s.80G(1)(b) ERA 1996
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.