Case 3305115/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Y Tekeste v British Airways plc — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305115/2022
- Decision date
- 4 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr N Boustred, Ms B Robinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Y Tekeste
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant's complaints of direct sex discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, harassment related to sex and victimisation. The judgment records that those complaints were not well-founded.
The written judgment does not set out detailed reasons because reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated time limit. No monetary remedy was awarded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct sex discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the short judgment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of pregnancy discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the short judgment. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the complaint of harassment related to sex was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the short judgment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the complaint of victimisation was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the short judgment. | 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.