Case 3206040/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Charlotte Khatso v London Borough of Hackney — 2024
- Case reference
- 3206040/2022
- Decision date
- 8 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mack Members
- Venue
- East London
- Panel members
- Ms A Berry, Ms S Harwood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Charlotte Khatso
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant succeeded in Equality Act claims under sections 13, 15 and 21. The judgment text provided does not include written reasons, so the extracted findings are limited to the recorded outcomes rather than the tribunal's factual reasoning.
The tribunal also found the claimant's unfair dismissal claim to be well-founded. It dismissed the claim under the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, stating that part of that claim was out of time and part was not well-founded.
A separate remedy hearing was listed for 29 April 2024, so this judgment does not determine compensation or other monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Judgment states the Equality Act 2010 section 13 claim was well-founded. Written reasons were not provided in the extracted text; disability is inferred from the case category and the accompanying sections 15 and 21 findings. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Judgment states the Equality Act 2010 section 15 claim was well-founded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Judgment states the Equality Act 2010 section 21 claim was well-founded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment states the unfair dismissal claim was well-founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Fixed-term employee regulations | Dismissed because the judgment records that the claim was in part out of time and in part not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Equality Act 2010 s.13
- Equality Act 2010 s.15
- Equality Act 2010 s.21
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.