Case 3302445/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v TC Facilities Management Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3302445/2020
- Decision date
- 14 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing and was not represented. The case was heard remotely on the papers. On the evidence before it, the tribunal dismissed the complaints of sex discrimination and of unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy or because of illness suffered by the claimant as a result of it. The tribunal said those complaints were dismissed in the absence of any evidence from the claimant to support them.
The tribunal also dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint. It found that the respondent dismissed the claimant for some other substantial reason and that the respondent acted fairly in all the circumstances of the case in treating that reason as one that justified dismissal. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment refers to unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy or because of illness suffered by the claimant as a result of it. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant for some other substantial reason and acted fairly in all the circumstances. | 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.