Case 2304609/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Simmonds v Croydon London Borough Council and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304609/2021
- Decision date
- 22 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith
- Panel members
- Mr Hutchings, Ms Mitchell
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms H Simmonds
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs H Simmonds brought complaints of direct race discrimination, direct sex discrimination, harassment related to race, harassment related to sex, and victimisation against Croydon London Borough Council and Katherine Kerswell. The tribunal recorded that each of those complaints was not well founded and dismissed them. The written record does not set out the tribunal's detailed oral reasons, only the final outcomes.
The claimant also brought complaints of constructive unfair dismissal and constructive wrongful dismissal against the First Respondent. Those complaints were likewise recorded as not well founded and were dismissed. No remedy was awarded, and the written decision contains no compensatory or other monetary figure.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The written record states this was a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal against the First Respondent, and it was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The written record states this was a complaint of constructive wrongful dismissal against the First Respondent, and it was dismissed. | 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.