Case 2405155/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Badat v Lancashire County Council and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2405155/2020
- Decision date
- 31 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mrs Humphreys, Mr Dobson
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs R Badat
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting unanimously, dismissed the claimant's claims against both respondents. The written judgment records dismissal of claims under Equality Act 2010 sections 13, 19, 26(1) and (2), and 27, claims under Employment Rights Act 1996 sections 47B and 103A, and wrongful dismissal.
The judgment states that the claims were not well founded. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record does not set out further factual findings or reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Equality Act 2010 sections 13 and 19 claims were dismissed as not well founded; the written judgment does not separate findings by section or protected characteristic. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Equality Act 2010 sections 13 and 19 claims were dismissed as not well founded; the written judgment does not separate findings by section or protected characteristic. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | Equality Act 2010 sections 13 and 19 claims were dismissed as not well founded; the written judgment does not separate findings by section or protected characteristic. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Equality Act 2010 section 26(1) and (2) claims were dismissed as not well founded. The written judgment does not identify which protected characteristic or characteristics attached to the harassment claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Equality Act 2010 section 27 claims were dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Employment Rights Act 1996 sections 47B and 103A claims were dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Equality Act 2010 sections 13, 19, 26(1) and (2), and 27
- Employment Rights Act 1996 sections 47B and 103A
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.