Case 3200032/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R. Harman v Strettons Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200032/2020
- Decision date
- 10 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella Members
- Panel members
- Ms G. Forrest, Ms A. Berry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R. Harman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Harman brought claims concerning accrued but untaken holiday, equal pay, disability discrimination, and constructive dismissal. The tribunal recorded that the holiday claim under Reg 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was dismissed on withdrawal.
On the equal pay claim, the tribunal found that Ms Harman did not do like work when compared with her male comparator, and that Strettons Limited had not breached the implied sex equality clause under s.66 EqA. That claim therefore failed.
The tribunal also dismissed the disability discrimination claims. It held that the s.20 EqA reasonable adjustments claim was not well-founded, and that the s.15 EqA claim for unfavourable treatment arising from disability was also not well-founded. Finally, the tribunal found that Ms Harman had not been constructively dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued but untaken holiday under Reg 14, WTR 1998; dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Equal pay | The tribunal found the Claimant did not undertake like work by comparison with her male comparator and the Respondent did not breach the implied sex equality clause under s.66 EqA. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under s.20 EqA for failure to make reasonable adjustments; found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under s.15 EqA alleging unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability; found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the Claimant was not constructively dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Reg 14, WTR 1998
- s.66 EqA
- s.20 EqA
- s.15 EqA
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.