Case 2301949/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301949/2023
- Decision date
- 18 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tueje MEMBERS
- Panel members
- Mrs J Clewlow, Mr R Singh
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant's complaints of direct age discrimination, direct sex discrimination, direct marriage or civil partnership discrimination, harassment related to age, harassment related to sex, constructive unfair dismissal, breach of contract and unauthorised deduction from wages. Each complaint was found not to be well-founded.
The appendix records that the Tribunal decided the case by reference to a final list of issues updated on the first day of the final hearing. Some proposed amendments were agreed, but others were not permitted after the claimant was unable to show that the disputed amendments formed part of the existing claim, and the Tribunal had regard to Selkent v Moore [1996] ICR 836.
The judgment records the allegations considered in the final list of issues, including matters concerning contract status, payslips, classroom and equipment issues, alleged comments, lesson feedback, pay progression, timetable allocation and access to work materials. The short judgment does not set out detailed reasons for the dismissal of each allegation or any monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct age discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct sex discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Marriage or civil partnership discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct marriage or civil partnership discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Marriage / civil partnership | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the complaint of harassment related to age was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the complaint of harassment related to sex was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes the complaint as unfair dismissal under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the list of issues identifies this as constructive dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Selkent v Moore [1996] ICR 836
- section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 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.