Case 3304292/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Hazera Bibi v CareTech Community Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3304292/2023
- Decision date
- 6 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings Tribunal
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- D. Hart, C. Davie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Hazera Bibi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard Miss Hazera Bibi's complaints against CareTech Community Services Limited at Cambridge over seven days in April and May 2024. The written record states that the judgment was given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons were provided unless requested separately. In this written judgment record, the tribunal recorded that each of the pleaded complaints was not well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The complaint of direct race discrimination was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The complaint of direct sex discrimination was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | The complaint of direct age discrimination was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The complaint of direct religion or belief discrimination was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to race was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to sex was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to age was found not well-founded and 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.