Case 3201898/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Booth v CGTC Manufacturing Innovation Centre Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3201898/2021
- Decision date
- 9 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Frazer Members
- Panel members
- Mr D Hurrell, Mr B Wakefield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Booth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at East London Hearing Centre by CVP on 4, 5 and 6 January 2023 before Employment Judge A Frazer, with lay members Mr D Hurrell and Mr B Wakefield. It determined claims brought by Mrs E Booth against CGTC Manufacturing Innovation Centre Ltd arising from the list of issues at paragraphs 4.2.1.1 to 4.2.1.3 and paragraph 4.3.
The tribunal held that the direct discrimination claim at paragraph 4.2.1.1 was well founded and would succeed. It held that the direct discrimination claims at paragraphs 4.2.1.2 and 4.2.1.3 were not well founded and were dismissed.
The tribunal also held that the harassment claim at paragraph 4.3 was not well founded and was dismissed. The short extracted judgment records no monetary remedy, no separate award, and no legal tests by name.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claim for direct discrimination at paragraph 4.2.1.1 was well founded and would succeed. The extracted text does not identify the specific factual basis beyond that paragraph reference. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the direct discrimination claim at paragraph 4.2.1.2 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the direct discrimination claim at paragraph 4.2.1.3 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the harassment claim at paragraph 4.3 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.