Case 3213032/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Janet Peart (as personal representative of Mr Derek Woodroffe, deceased) v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3213032/2020
- Decision date
- 28 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Volkmer Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr J Hutchings, Ms J Isherwood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Janet Peart (as personal representative of Mr Derek Woodroffe, deceased)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the Claimant's claim of direct race discrimination was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant.
The tribunal upheld the Claimant's claim of constructive unfair dismissal. It also upheld the claim that the Respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments and the claim of harassment related to race.
No remedy was determined in this judgment. The tribunal stated that remedy would be determined at a separate hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claim of direct race discrimination was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a claim of constructive unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claim that the Respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments was upheld. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that harassment related to race was upheld. | Upheld | Race | — |
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.