Case 3304927/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C McGibbon v London Underground Limited and 8 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304927/2023
- Decision date
- 16 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Smith
Parties
10 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms C McGibbon, a Trains Manager employed by London Underground Limited since 24 February 2014, brought two consolidated claims against London Underground Limited, Transport for London and a number of individual respondents. Claim one (3304927/2023) advanced complaints of harassment related to sex or of a sexual nature, direct sex and race discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation, and protected disclosure detriment. Claim two (2217647/2023) advanced harassment related to sex, victimisation, and direct sex and race discrimination. The respondent conceded that the claimant was disabled by reason of depression but not by reason of anxiety or Generalised Anxiety Disorder.
Following a hearing before Employment Judge B Smith sitting alone at London Central in March, April and May 2025, the Tribunal dismissed every claim in both proceedings as not well-founded. To the extent any allegation was not pursued against a particular respondent, it was treated as withdrawn. Privacy orders apply to the judgment and reasons, and the claimant waived her rights under section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. The parties confirmed at the close of submissions that there were no issues about the procedural fairness of the hearing.
No remedies were awarded because all claims were dismissed. The monetary figures identified by Layer 1 from the PDF text appear to relate to costs, deposit orders or case-management matters rather than substantive compensation, and the available text does not establish any compensatory award to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
11 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Claim one: harassment related to sex, alternatively of a sexual nature - not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Claim one: direct sex discrimination - not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim one: direct race discrimination - not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim one: indirect disability discrimination - not well-founded and dismissed. Disability conceded only in respect of depression. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim one: failure to make reasonable adjustments - not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Claim one: victimisation - not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim one: protected disclosure detriment under s.47B ERA - not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.43A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.43C ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- Western Union Payment Services UK Ltd v Anastasiou
- Boulding v Land Securities Trillium (Media Services) Ltd
- Kraus v Penna plc
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.