Case 2500149/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Poblet v TUV Rheinland UK Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500149/2023
- Decision date
- 22 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heather
- Venue
- Newcastle
- Panel members
- Mr K Smith, Mr D Dorman-Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Poblet
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a Business Development Manager and complained that she had been directly discriminated against because of sex and age. The tribunal found that the claims were brought in time because, taking the claimant's case at its highest, the alleged acts formed conduct extending over a period ending with her dismissal on 1 September 2022.
On the sex discrimination allegations, the tribunal found that Ms Gomes did not say it would be better for a man to represent the respondent at a meeting, did not say that the claimant's children were a hindrance to her performance, and that sales leads on 9 August 2022 were allocated according to the respondent's usual practice to someone available to pursue them. It also found that a man in materially the same circumstances, including the same sales performance, training position, late business plan and inaccurate sales reports, would also have failed probation and been dismissed.
On the age discrimination allegations, the tribunal found that Ms Gomes did not ask the claimant when she was planning to retire or whether she planned to retire to Spain. The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not treated less favourably because of age or sex, and dismissed both claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal held that the complaint of direct age discrimination was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal held that the complaint of direct sex discrimination was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.