Case 2416092/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Rycroft v Sue Ryder — 2022
- Case reference
- 2416092/2020
- Decision date
- 2 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr B Rowen, Mr W Partington
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Rycroft
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningHeard at Manchester Employment Tribunal on 17 to 21 October 2022 before Employment Judge Cookson sitting with Mr B Rowen and Mr W Partington, the tribunal unanimously dismissed the unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract claims on withdrawal. It also dismissed Ms J Rycroft's direct discrimination claim on grounds of race under s13 EqA and her harassment claim under s26 EqA.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed on withdrawal; grouped with the breach of contract claim in the judgment. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed on withdrawal; grouped with the unlawful deduction from wages claim in the judgment. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination on grounds of race under s13 EqA was not upheld. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment contrary to s26 EqA was not upheld; the extracted wording does not repeat the protected characteristic. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation under s27 EqA was upheld only in relation to deletion of the claimant's IT account and withdrawal of her email access, and removal from the duty roster without her knowledge or consent. The remaining victimisation allegations were dismissed. The award was £5,000 for injury to feelings plus £884.38 interest. | Upheld | — | £5,884 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,884
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s13 EqA
- s26 EqA
- s27 EqA
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, article 12
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.