Case 2302738/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss. L. Reader v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2026
- Case reference
- 2302738/2024
- Decision date
- 27 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms. S. Dengate, Mr. D. Newlyn
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss. L. Reader
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously dismissed Miss L. Reader's complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal as not well founded. It also dismissed her direct sex discrimination complaint and her complaint of discrimination arising from disability.
The tribunal upheld one complaint of harassment related to sex. The finding concerned only a comment made in February 2018, identified as the allegation at paragraph 35 of the List of Issues. The judgment does not record the content of the comment or give further factual findings or legal reasoning for this outcome.
The victimisation complaint was dismissed as not well founded. No other allegation was upheld in the judgment.
The tribunal made no monetary award. It encouraged the parties to seek agreement on the remedy for the upheld harassment allegation, directly or through Acas, and ordered them to report within seven days whether they had agreed a remedy or required a Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal was found not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex was upheld only in respect of the comment made in February 2018. Remedy remained to be agreed or determined at a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The complaint of direct sex discrimination was found not well founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint was discrimination arising from disability and was found not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation complaint was found not well founded. | 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.