Case 2502394/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Clayton, counsel v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2502394/2019
- Decision date
- 4 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy
- Panel members
- Mrs J Maughan, Ms E Wiles
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Miss Clayton, counsel
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Teesside Justice Centre on 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 29 October and 1 November 2021 before Employment Judge Loy sitting with Mrs J Maughan and Ms E Wiles. The claimant, Ms N Bridson, was represented by Miss Clayton and the respondent, Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police, was represented by Mr Arnold.
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant’s claims. It held that the claims of direct sex discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010, discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010, harassment related to sex under section 26 Equality Act 2010, and harassment related to disability under section 26 Equality Act 2010 were not well-founded and therefore failed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010; found not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability contrary to section 15 Equality Act 2010; found not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex contrary to section 26 Equality Act 2010; found not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability contrary to section 26 Equality Act 2010; found not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.