Case 3302852/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Jade Harris v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3302852/2022
- Decision date
- 16 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JUDGMENT
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Miss Jade Harris
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn case 3302852/2022, Miss Jade Harris v Thanureka Jagajeevan, the judgment dated 16 June 2022 records that the time for presenting a response had expired and that no valid response had been presented in time. On the information before Employment Judge M Warren, the claim succeeded.
The tribunal did not determine compensation in this judgment. It stated that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled would be determined at a Remedy Hearing, notice of which would follow in due course.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The written judgment does not break this head of claim out separately; it records only that the claim succeeds and that remedy will be determined later. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The written judgment does not break this head of claim out separately; it records only that the claim succeeds and that remedy will be determined later. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment does not set out any award or separate reasoning for this head of claim; it records only that the claim succeeds and that remedy will be determined later. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Used for the written pay statement element reflected in the case listing; the PDF text itself does not identify that head separately. | Upheld | — | — |
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.