Case 3200028/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Johnson v Red Balloon Foundation (Insolvent CIO) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200028/2024
- Decision date
- 29 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Craft Members
- Panel members
- Mrs S Harwood, Mr M Wood
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr J Johnson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningRed Balloon Foundation was insolvent and was wound up in September 2024, and Mr Lowrie's employment as CEO ended by redundancy on that winding-up. The tribunal unanimously dismissed Mr Johnson's victimisation claims against both respondents under s.27 Equality Act 2010. No monetary award was made.
The tribunal found that the decision to invite Mr Johnson to a disciplinary hearing on 8 December 2023 and, after that hearing, to dismiss him for failing to attend work since 20 September 2022, together with Employment Judge Jones's earlier findings in case 3205222/2022 that he had been dishonest about his employment and means and had breached the Team Code of Conduct, were not made because of the two alleged protected acts relied on by Mr Johnson. It also found that those decisions were not because of his race or colour or related to his race or colour.
The tribunal further found that the Board of Trustees' decision, after taking legal advice, to defer considering his appeal against dismissal until the outcome of his EAT appeal did not subject him to a detriment and was not made because of the alleged protected acts or because of his race or colour or related to his race or colour.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Claim against both respondents under s.27 Equality Act 2010; the tribunal found the disciplinary hearing, dismissal and appeal deferral were not because of the alleged protected acts or the claimant's race or colour. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.27 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.