Case 3301177/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Miss L Frieda v Boots Management Services Ltd — 2023

Case reference: 3301177/2021
Decision date: 23 May 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Members
Venue: Reading
Panel members: Ms J Cameron, Ms H T Edwards

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss L Frieda

Respondent

Boots Management Services Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal heard the case at Reading on 17, 18, 19 and 20 April 2023 before Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto, sitting with Ms J Cameron and Ms H T Edwards. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.

The judgment records that the claimant's complaints of direct sex discrimination, direct race discrimination and victimisation were not well founded and were dismissed. The judgment also records that the respondent's application for costs was dismissed.

Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment does not set out further factual findings or legal reasoning.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Sex discrimination	The judgment records that the complaint of direct sex discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed. Written reasons are not included in the provided judgment text.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Race discrimination	The judgment records that the complaint of direct race discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed. Written reasons are not included in the provided judgment text.	Dismissed	Race	—
Victimisation	The judgment records that the complaint of victimisation was not well founded and was dismissed. The protected characteristic connected to the victimisation complaint is not specified in the judgment text.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.