Case 2408853/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Taylor v Lloyds pharmacy — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408853/2020
- Decision date
- 13 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms L Heath, Dr H Vahramian
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Ms C Taylor's complaints of race discrimination under sections 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010 failed. On the face of the judgment, those claims were dismissed.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal failed. No financial remedy was awarded in the written judgment.
The decision note states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested. No written reasons are contained in the extracted text supplied here.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment states that the claimant's complaints of race discrimination under section 26 Equality Act 2010 fail. No written reasons are included in the record. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the claimant's complaints of race discrimination under section 27 Equality Act 2010 fail. No written reasons are included in the record. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal fails. No written reasons are included in the record. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
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.
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.