Case 2304842/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Elizabeth Benassi v Maximus UK Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304842/2022
- Decision date
- 30 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Fowell
- Panel members
- Ms L Atkinson, Mr J Sharma
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Elizabeth Benassi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the remaining claims at the hearing were harassment on grounds of age and victimisation. It found that the claimant's grievance included a clear allegation that treatment by her manager stemmed from her age, and therefore amounted to a protected act for the purposes of victimisation.
The tribunal dismissed the age harassment complaint, concluding on the available text that there was no basis to find the relevant treatment was related to the claimant's age. It upheld victimisation, finding that after the grievance there was increased scrutiny, contact with HR, treatment connected to an effective demotion to receptionist duties, and dismissal in circumstances where the respondent had not provided a satisfactory explanation sufficient to discharge the burden on it.
The judgment was on liability only. The tribunal directed that compensation would be resolved at a later remedy hearing, so no award or component breakdown was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The tribunal upheld the complaint of victimisation. Compensation was left to a remedy hearing, so no remedy amount was awarded in this liability judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal dismissed the complaint of harassment on grounds of age. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 27(2)(d)
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.