Case 3201793/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Assana Mounkpoupouonkoui v Brampton Manor Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 3201793/2023
- Decision date
- 24 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade
- Venue
- London East
- Panel members
- Mrs G Forrest, Ms J Isherwood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Assana Mounkpoupouonkoui
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a French and Spanish teacher at Langdon Academy within Brampton Manor Trust, brought complaints of constructive unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, harassment related to disability and indirect sex discrimination. Some Equality Act complaints were held to be out of time, and the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction over the associative indirect disability discrimination complaints under section 19 Equality Act 2010.
On the constructive dismissal complaint, the tribunal did not find that the matters relied on, individually or cumulatively, amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found the claimant resigned because of disagreement with the allocation of lesson planning work, but did not accept that the respondent's approach amounted to a fundamental breach of contract.
The tribunal dismissed the remaining disability discrimination, harassment and indirect sex discrimination complaints. It found, among other matters, that the relevant treatment was not shown to be because of or related to the claimant's children's disabilities, that some alleged requirements or comments were not established, and that where certain PCPs placed or may have placed the claimant at a disadvantage, the respondent had shown proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment described the complaint as constructive unfair dismissal and found it was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination complaints were partly held out of time and the remaining complaints were dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to consider the associative indirect disability discrimination complaints under section 19 Equality Act 2010; it also stated that, if it had jurisdiction, it would have dismissed them on the merits. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability complaints were partly held out of time and the remaining complaint was dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination complaints were partly held out of time and the remaining complaints were dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating Ltd v Sharp
- implied term of trust and confidence
- Malik v BCCI
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia
- British Airways v Rollett
- Pemberton v Inwood
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
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.