Case 2501818/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Salazar Méndez v Durham University Heard: Remotely (by telephone) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501818/2021
- Decision date
- 11 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Salazar Méndez
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a private preliminary hearing heard remotely by telephone on 10 February 2022 before Employment Judge Shore. The claimant, Miss A Salazar Méndez, appeared in person and Durham University was represented by Ms S Morton, solicitor.
The judgment records four claims: indirect discrimination because of age under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010, race discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, and breach of contract under Article 4 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994. Each claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal did not determine the claims on their merits. No remedy or monetary award was recorded, and the written record notes that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Claim described as indirect discrimination because of age; dismissed upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed upon withdrawal under Article 4 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.