Case 2500269/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Mills First v Kids Club Community Limited Second Respondent Mr A Curl — 2019
- Case reference
- 2500269/2019
- Decision date
- 15 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden
- Panel members
- Mr R Greig, Mr S Hunter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Mills First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at North Shields before Employment Judge Aspden with lay members Mr R Greig and Mr S Hunter, unanimously found that Kids Club Community Limited and Mr A Curl harassed Miss N Mills contrary to the Equality Act 2010. The harassment findings related to a Facebook message sent on 12 January 2019 and a demand on 15 January 2019 that the claimant work with Mr Curl.
The tribunal also found that Kids Club Community Limited victimised the claimant contrary to the Equality Act 2010 by subjecting her to a disciplinary process, dismissing her, issuing invoices for childcare fees, and threatening court action for non-payment. It dismissed the claimant's other harassment complaint and her other victimisation complaints. The written record does not set out any monetary award or other remedy, and it notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Found in relation to the Facebook message sent on 12 January 2019 and the demand on 15 January 2019 that the claimant work with Mr Curl; the claimant's other harassment complaint was dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | Found in relation to the disciplinary process, dismissal, childcare fee invoices, and threat of court action for non-payment; the claimant's other victimisation complaints were dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
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.