Case 2302883/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms Senior — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302883/2023
- Decision date
- 15 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Siddall
- Panel members
- Mr C Mardner, Mr K Murphy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge Siddall and lay members Mr C Mardner and Mr K Murphy, heard the claims under case numbers 2302883/2023 and 2301940/2024. By majority, it held that the direct discrimination claims because of race under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, so far as they related to allegations 3, 3(a)(ii), 3(b) and 3(c) on the List of Issues, were not well founded and did not succeed.
The tribunal also unanimously held that the remaining direct discrimination claims were not well founded and did not succeed, and it unanimously dismissed the victimisation claim. The judgment does not record any monetary award, and the claimant's application for a preparation time order in relation to these claims was refused. The hearing of the separate claims under number 2301095/25 was adjourned to 24 November 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | By majority, the tribunal found the direct discrimination claims because of race under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, in relation to allegations 3, 3(a)(ii), 3(b) and 3(c) on the List of Issues, were not well founded and did not succeed. The tribunal also unanimously dismissed the remaining direct discrimination claims. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal unanimously found the victimisation claim not well founded and dismissed it. The extracted text refers to section 27 of the Equality Act 2025; this is recorded as it appears in the judgment text. | 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.