Case 2501134/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Williams v Kier Limited Heard: Remotely (by video) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2501134/2020
- Decision date
- 2 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore NLM
- Panel members
- Ms E Wiles NLM, Mr S Wykes NLM
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case remotely by video on 4, 5 and 6 October 2021 before Employment Judge S Shore, sitting with Ms E Wiles NLM and Mr S Wykes NLM. The claimant, Mrs A Williams, appeared in person and the respondent, Kier Limited, was represented by counsel.
The unanimous judgment was that the claimant's indirect discrimination claim because of sex under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 failed. The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's direct discrimination claim because of age under section 13 EqA 2010.
A further claim of indirect discrimination because of age under section 19 EqA 2010 also failed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
No remedy or compensation is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Indirect discrimination because of sex under section 19 EqA 2010. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct discrimination because of age under section 13 EqA 2010. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | Indirect discrimination because of age under section 19 EqA 2010. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 19 Equality Act 2010
- section 13 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.