Case 2410016/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Bailey v Mrs A Robinson — 2020
- Case reference
- 2410016/2019
- Decision date
- 10 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms CS Jammeh, Mr P Stowe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Bailey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mrs A Robinson directly discriminated against Ms B Bailey on grounds of age contrary to s.13 Equality Act 2010. The discriminatory conduct identified was the respondent's attempt in May 2019 to reduce the claimant's working pattern from three days per week to one day per week.
The tribunal further found that the reduction in hours led to the claimant's resignation, which was described in the judgment as a constructive dismissal. The judgment did not record any separate dismissal claim under a different statutory head; the finding formed part of the age discrimination claim that succeeded.
The respondent was ordered to pay £3,354 in total. That sum comprised £354 for past loss of earnings and £3,000 for injury to feelings. The tribunal made no award of interest.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found direct age discrimination contrary to s.13 Equality Act 2010 in the respondent's attempt to reduce the claimant's hours from three days per week to one day per week in May 2019. The tribunal also found that the reduction in hours caused the claimant to resign. The award comprised £354 for past loss of earnings and £3,000 for injury to feelings. | Upheld | Age | £3,354 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,354
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £354
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13 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.
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.