Case 2302233/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Rowena Owens v Network Rail Ltd By CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302233/2020
- Decision date
- 18 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin
- Panel members
- Ms Denton, Ms Omer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Rowena Owens
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a signaller at Wimbledon and brought claims arising from alleged treatment in a male-dominated workplace, including direct sex discrimination, harassment, and victimisation. The tribunal found the claimant's evidence credible and, taking the pre-grievance allegations at their highest, proceeded on the basis that the events in items 1-25 of the Scott Schedule happened and were discriminatory on the grounds of sex.
For the post-grievance allegations, the tribunal found shortcomings in the grievance investigation and appeal, including inadequate support and training for those handling them, but found those matters were not because of sex and were not acts of direct discrimination, harassment, or victimisation. It also found the allegations concerning Mr Kemp were not made out as discrimination or victimisation.
Because the post-grievance matters did not amount to a continuing act of discrimination, the earlier allegations were out of time. The claimant had not given evidence explaining the delay, and the tribunal concluded it could not extend time on just and equitable grounds, so the claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the direct sex discrimination claims. It found the post-grievance allegations were not acts of discrimination and that the earlier allegations were out of time with no just and equitable extension granted. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Several pleaded allegations were put as sex harassment or sexual harassment in the alternative. The tribunal dismissed the claims after finding no continuing act bringing earlier matters in time and no basis to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal dismissed the victimisation claims. It found the post-grievance allegations, including the grievance investigation and appeal matters, were not acts of victimisation and declined to extend time for earlier matters. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council v Derbyshire
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan
- Driskel v Peninsular Business Services Ltd
- Reed and Bull Information Systems Ltd v Stedman
- Land Registry v Grant
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- O'Brien v Department for Constitutional Affairs
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
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.
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.