Case 3305909/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Mills v Winchmore School — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305909/2022
- Decision date
- 14 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Members
- Panel members
- Ms Morgan, Ms Williams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Mills
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss J Mills brought claims against Winchmore School for direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, and pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The case was heard at Bury St Edmunds by CVP on 9, 10, 11 and 12 April 2024 before Employment Judge Graham, with Ms Morgan and Ms Williams sitting as members and the claimant appearing in person.
The extracted judgment record states that all three complaints failed and were dismissed. It also records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the supplied text does not include any further factual findings, legal analysis, or remedy assessment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment summary states that the direct race discrimination complaint failed and was dismissed. No written reasons or separate remedy were included in the extracted text. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment summary states that the complaint of harassment related to race failed and was dismissed. No written reasons or separate remedy were included in the extracted text. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment summary states that the pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaint failed and was dismissed. No written reasons or separate remedy were included in the extracted text. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
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.