Case 2602931/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Patel v Leicestershire County Council and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2602931/2020
- Decision date
- 9 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Britton Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms B Patel
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an attended preliminary hearing conducted remotely by Cloud Video Platform before Employment Judge P Britton, the tribunal recorded that claim no. 2602931/2020 was dismissed upon withdrawal. In claim no. 2602932/2020, the race discrimination claim and the claim based on discrimination because of a religious or philosophical belief were also dismissed upon withdrawal.
The respondents conceded that the claimant was a disabled person, so the disability discrimination claim was allowed to proceed. The claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim, pleaded pursuant to section 95 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, also continued because the respondents did not oppose that application. The tribunal said directions on the way forward would be set out in a separate document.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim no. 2602931/2020 was dismissed upon withdrawal; the judgment does not identify the underlying cause of action. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim no. 2602932/2020; the race discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Claim no. 2602932/2020; the claim based on discrimination because of a religious or philosophical belief was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 95 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.