Case 3300386/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3300386/2019
- Decision date
- 30 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr M Bhatti, MBE, Mr A Scott
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting unanimously at Watford on 21-25 and 28-29 September 2020, dismissed the claimant's claims of direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010. The extracted judgment does not set out the tribunal's detailed reasoning for those Equality Act claims, but records the formal outcome that each did not succeed.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the claimant resigned and was not dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's claim of direct discrimination contrary to sections 13 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 did not succeed and was dismissed. The protected characteristic is not stated in the extracted text, but the case listing was for race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the claimant's claim of harassment contrary to sections 26 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 did not succeed and was dismissed. The protected characteristic is not stated in the extracted text, but the case listing was for race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the claimant's claim of victimisation contrary to sections 27 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 did not succeed and was dismissed. The protected characteristic is not stated in the extracted text, but the case listing was for race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was not dismissed within the meaning of section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because she resigned. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
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.