Case 3300980/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Donaldson (1) Mrs T de Mello (2) v British Airways plc — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300980/2021
- Decision date
- 12 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Donaldson (1) Mrs T de Mello (2)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case concerned measures taken by British Airways during the Covid-19 pandemic to consolidate its three cabin crew fleets (the two Legacy Fleets — Worldwide and Euro — and the Mixed Fleet) into a single Heathrow Fleet, on terms with more in common with the Mixed Fleet than the Legacy Fleets. Heard as a Common Issues hearing before Employment Judge Anstis sitting alone, the proceedings narrowed during the early weeks to two claimants, Miss T Donaldson (Euro Fleet) and Mrs T de Mello (Worldwide Fleet), pursuing claims of indirect sex discrimination, indirect and direct age discrimination, less favourable treatment as part-time workers, unfair dismissal, and (for the second claimant) wrongful dismissal.
The tribunal dismissed all live claims. The first claimant's indirect race discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal. The indirect sex and age discrimination claims, examined both as individual PCPs and in combination, were not made out; on the PCP4 pay PCP the tribunal addressed justification and concluded the respondent's restructuring during the pandemic was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The direct age discrimination claims were dismissed, and the part-time worker claims were not upheld.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal addressed both the reason for dismissal and fairness and dismissed the claims. The second claimant's wrongful dismissal claim was also dismissed. No remedy was awarded because no claim succeeded.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | First claimant's indirect race discrimination claim dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination claims by both claimants dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | Indirect age discrimination claims by both claimants dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination claims by both claimants dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | Claims of less favourable treatment as part-time workers dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal claims by both claimants dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Second claimant's wrongful dismissal claim dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.