Case 2400016/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G McGreevey v Abm UK — 2021
- Case reference
- 2400016/2020
- Decision date
- 6 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
- Panel members
- Ms C Bowman, Mr PC Northam
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G McGreevey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by CVP on 29, 30 and 31 March 2021 before Employment Judge Shotter sitting with Ms C Bowman and Mr PC Northam. The claimant was represented in person and the respondent by an employment law advocate.
The tribunal's unanimous judgment was that the respondent was not in breach of contract. It also found that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed, and that her claim for constructive unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was not treated less favourably because of sex. Her direct discrimination claim under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 was therefore dismissed. No monetary remedy is recorded in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was not in breach of contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant's claim for constructive unfair dismissal was said to be not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found that the claimant was not treated less favourably because of sex and dismissed the direct discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.