Case 3307076/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sylvia Constance v Harpenden Mencap — 2025
- Case reference
- 3307076/2022
- Decision date
- 18 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mrs J Hancock, Mr M Bhatti MBE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Sylvia Constance
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, direct age discrimination and victimisation against Harpenden Mencap. The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that complaints made against the claimant were legitimate and did not constitute a targeted racist campaign, and that the dismissal was not less favourable treatment because a younger, white comparator would have been treated in the same way.
For victimisation, the tribunal found that the claimant's grievances and first tribunal claim were protected acts, and that some alleged treatment amounted to detriments. However, it found those detriments were either before the protected acts or were for reasons unrelated to the protected acts. For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason, namely irrevocable breakdown in working relations, and that the respondent's conclusion was within the range of reasonable responses.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason, namely irrevocable breakdown in working relations, and that dismissal was fair in all the circumstances. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment identifies this as direct race discrimination. The tribunal found no suggestion that Claire Wilson's actions were prompted by racist sentiment and found a younger, white comparator would have been treated in the same way in relation to dismissal. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment identifies this as direct age discrimination. The tribunal dismissed the age discrimination complaints and found a younger, white comparator would have been treated in the same way in relation to dismissal. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal accepted that grievances dated 14 October 2021 and 31 March 2022, and the first tribunal claim, were protected acts, but found the proven detriments were not because of those protected acts. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Equality Act 2010 section 13
- Equality Act 2010 section 123
- HM Revenue and Customs v Garau [2017] ICR 1121
- range of reasonable responses
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.