Case 2304016/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Matthews v A1F1 Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2304016/2018
- Decision date
- 9 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Members
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mr N Aziz, Ms J Bird
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Matthews
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss M Matthews worked for A1F1 Limited as a clinic assistant. The tribunal found that after a black patient attended the clinic on 28 July 2018, the lead sonographer, Gill Scott, made comments referring to "black women" and later to "African women" and Nigerian women exposing themselves. The claimant raised a grievance, and a meeting on 30 July 2018 was held to "clear the air". The tribunal rejected the reliability of the contemporaneous minutes produced by the respondent's witness, found that the claimant was credible, and found that Ms Scott had not apologised but instead sought to justify what she had said.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal upheld a complaint of unlawful harassment related to race arising from comments made on 28 and 30 July 2018. It awarded £10,000 for injury to feelings plus £927.12 interest, making £10,927.12 in total. | Upheld | Race | £10,927 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,927
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Pemberton v Inwood
- Vento bands
- Essa v Laing Ltd
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.