Case 2417493/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Stonehouse v British Telecommunications plc — 2022
- Case reference
- 2417493/2020
- Decision date
- 3 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkett REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Stonehouse
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims against British Telecommunications PLC under sections 15 and 26 of the Equality Act 2010. The matter was heard at Manchester by CVP before Employment Judge Sharkett, with the claimant representing herself and the respondent represented by in-house counsel.
The Tribunal gave judgment that the claimant's claims under s15 and s26 of the Equality Act 2010 were not well founded and were dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the claimant's claim under s15 of the Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and dismissed. The protected characteristic is inferred from the listing category and the statutory context, but the short judgment text does not set out detailed reasons. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment records that the claimant's claim under s26 of the Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and dismissed. The protected characteristic is inferred from the listing category and the statutory context, but the short judgment text does not set out detailed reasons. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s15 Equality Act 2010
- s26 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.