Case 3203100/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Jugdeep Mahal (Nee Buttar) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2023
- Case reference
- 3203100/2019
- Decision date
- 7 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge John Crosfill
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mrs M Legg, Mr M Rowe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Jugdeep Mahal (Nee Buttar)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, a Communications Supervisor at the Metropolitan Police Service's Bow Command and Control Centre, brought claims arising from treatment between about February 2017 and March 2022. The Tribunal recorded that the claims under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded by consent, with remedy and any declaration to be dealt with later.
The Tribunal upheld one victimisation complaint: that Joanna Wood repeatedly asked the Claimant to 'walk the floor'. It dismissed all other victimisation claims, including the complaints about working from home and lack of commendation or recognition discussed in the provided reasons, because the Tribunal did not find the protected acts were the reason for the treatment.
The Tribunal dismissed the claims of direct race discrimination, harassment, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. It found, in relation to the later working-from-home adjustment allegations, that the Claimant was placed at a substantial disadvantage, but that the Respondent ultimately made a reasonable adjustment within a reasonable time by identifying a role and securing a laptop.
Claims and outcomes
7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that by consent the Claimant's claims brought under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeed, with the sum awarded and declaration to be included in a remedy judgment in due course. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | The claim that Joanna Wood victimised the Claimant contrary to sections 27 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 by repeatedly asking her to 'walk the floor' succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | All further claims of victimisation were dismissed; the reasons also record that withdrawn claims were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment dismisses all claims of direct race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment records harassment claims related to disability and race and dismisses the harassment claims. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment records harassment claims related to disability and race and dismisses the harassment claims. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Part II Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 27 and 39 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20, 21 and 39 Equality Act 2010
- section 6 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.