Case 2304556/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Stravroula Saragoudas v Transport for London — 2025
- Case reference
- 2304556/2023
- Decision date
- 6 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Stravroula Saragoudas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by Transport for London in a Network Assurance role and brought complaints of direct sex discrimination, direct age discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The complaints concerned alleged treatment including secondment and training opportunities, performance processes, sickness absence, amended duties, team allocation and grievance handling.
The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and one claimant witness, and from several respondent witnesses, and considered a large documentary bundle. The judgment records that the claimant's evidence did not in large part reflect the documentary evidence, while the respondent's witnesses largely gave evidence supported by documentation and answered questions in a straightforward manner. The reserved judgment states that all claims are dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant complained of direct sex discrimination and that all claims are dismissed. The supplied PDF text is truncated, so detailed conclusions on each allegation are not fully available. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant complained of direct age discrimination and that all claims are dismissed. The supplied PDF text is truncated, so detailed conclusions on each allegation are not fully available. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the claimant complained of harassment and that all claims are dismissed. The supplied PDF text is truncated and does not clearly preserve the full harassment issue text or protected characteristic. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the claimant complained of victimisation and that all claims are dismissed. The supplied PDF text is truncated, so detailed conclusions on each alleged detriment are not fully available. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Section 13 Equality Act 2010
- Section 23 Equality Act 2010
- Section 26 Equality Act 2010
- Section 27 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.