Case 2414907/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Williams v Mears Ltd and 1 other — 2018
- Case reference
- 2414907/2018
- Decision date
- 15 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss B Williams
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing before Employment Judge Franey sitting alone, the tribunal recorded the withdrawal of certain Equality Act 2010 complaints by the claimant.
The judgment states that all complaints based on the protected characteristic of sex, all complaints alleging breach of the equality of terms provisions, and all complaints based on the protected characteristic of race were dismissed upon that withdrawal. The written judgment does not include written reasons or any further findings on the substance of those claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records that all complaints based on the protected characteristic of sex were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant; the specific sex-based Equality Act causes of action are not itemised. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Equal pay | Recorded as all complaints of a breach of the equality of terms provisions being dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment records that all complaints based on the protected characteristic of race were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant; the specific race-based Equality Act causes of action are not itemised. | Withdrawn | Race | — |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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.