Case 2303048/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Phillips v Ballymore Construction Services Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2303048/2019
- Decision date
- 10 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms C Oldfield, Mr R Shaw
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Phillips
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claim at London South on 6 to 10 December 2021 before Employment Judge Khalil, sitting with Ms C Oldfield and Mr R Shaw. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Ms Letts, Graduate Legal Executive.
The tribunal held that two remarks by separate employees about the claimant's hair, one at the end of July 2018 and one on or around 8 August 2018, were acts of direct race discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. Those race discrimination complaints succeeded.
All other claims were dismissed as not well founded: the remaining direct race discrimination allegations, the direct sex discrimination claim, the victimisation claim, the harassment claims based on sex and race, and the direct disability discrimination claim. The judgment recorded that the parties were strongly encouraged to resolve remedy privately; if that was not possible they were to write in after 28 days requesting a Remedy Hearing. No remedy figure was determined in the judgment provided.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that two remarks by separate employees about the claimant's hair, one at the end of July 2018 and one on or around 8 August 2018, were acts of direct race discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | All other direct race discrimination allegations were not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The direct sex discrimination claim was not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The harassment claims based on sex and race were not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation claim was not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The direct disability discrimination claim was not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13 Equality Act 2010
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.