Case 3200394/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Behice Gurol v Sports Direct.com Retail Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200394/2023
- Decision date
- 30 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hook Members
- Panel members
- Ms M Daniels, Mr P Lush
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Behice Gurol
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Behice Gurol brought claims against Sports Direct.com Retail Limited that were heard at East London Hearing Centre by CVP on 7-9 August 2024 and 27 September 2024. The tribunal was chaired by Employment Judge Hook, with Ms M Daniels and Mr P Lush as members. The judgment records that the claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Ms J Twomey, counsel.
The tribunal held that the claimant's harassment claim was not well founded and dismissed it. It also held that the claimant's claim for direct discrimination because of sex was not well founded and dismissed it. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The written record states only that the claimant's harassment claim was not well founded and dismissed; it does not specify the protected characteristic in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The claim was recorded as direct discrimination because of sex and was dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.