Case 2404791/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Rusin v Interact IT Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2404791/2022
- Decision date
- 3 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson MEMBERS
- Panel members
- Ms S Howarth, Mr P Stowe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Rusin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Manchester found that Miss S Rusin's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was well founded. It recorded that the finding was subject to a 75% reduction to the basic and compensatory awards for contributory fault on the claimant's part. The tribunal also found that, had she not resigned on 6 April 2022, her employment would have continued until 30 June 2022, when it would have ended in connection with the redundancy process concerning her role.
The complaints of disability discrimination and race discrimination were both found not well founded and were unsuccessful. No separate remedy was determined in the liability judgment.
The successful constructive unfair dismissal complaint was listed to proceed to a one-day remedy hearing so that compensation could be determined separately. The judgment does not set out any final monetary award in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal well founded and stated that basic and compensatory awards should be reduced by 75% for contributory fault. It also found that, had the claimant not resigned on 6 April 2022, her employment would have continued until 30 June 2022 and then ended in connection with the redundancy process concerning her job role. Remedy was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the complaint not well founded and therefore unsuccessful. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the complaint not well founded and therefore unsuccessful. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.