Case 2409631/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Ditta First v Second Respondent: Third Respondent: Mrs Claire Crowther Miss A Wilkinson The Governing Body of St Peter’s Primary School Church of England School Burnley — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409631/2022
- Decision date
- 11 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mrs Radcliffe, Mr Williams
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Manchester on 2 to 5 September 2024 before Employment Judge Childe, sitting with Mrs Radcliffe and Mr Williams. The claimant, Ms S Ditta First, appeared in person and was represented by her brother; the respondents were represented by counsel.
The written judgment records four complaints: direct religion discrimination, direct race discrimination, harassment related to religion, and harassment related to race. Each complaint was held not well-founded and was dismissed.
The extracted record does not contain the tribunal's oral reasons in detail. It states only that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | Complaint of direct religion discrimination was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | Complaint of direct race discrimination was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment related to religion was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment related to race was found not well-founded and dismissed. | 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.