Case 2405493/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Esther Brown v Ministry of Defence — 2023
- Case reference
- 2405493/2021
- Decision date
- 8 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Liverpool and Manchester
- Panel members
- Mrs J Pennie, Ms C Doyle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Esther Brown
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Liverpool and Manchester, a tribunal chaired by Employment Judge Cookson with Mrs J Pennie and Ms C Doyle unanimously disposed of the claimant's complaints in a short written judgment. The direct sex discrimination complaints were found not well-founded and dismissed. The indirect sex discrimination complaint relating to the application of the menopause policy was dismissed on withdrawal, and the other indirect sex discrimination complaints were also dismissed.
The tribunal further dismissed the indirect disability discrimination complaints, the harassment complaints related to sex and disability, the complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, and the complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability. The written record does not set out detailed factual findings or legal reasoning; it states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination complaints were found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination complaint relating to the application of the menopause policy; dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Other complaints of indirect sex discrimination were found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination complaints were found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment complaints related to sex and disability were found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability were found not well-founded and 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.