Case 3308888/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Gil v Herrington Carmichael LLP — 2024
- Case reference
- 3308888/2023
- Decision date
- 28 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mr P Hough, Mr F Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Gil
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Reading on 8, 9, 10 and 11 October 2024 before Employment Judge Hawksworth with Mr P Hough and Mr F Wright, gave a unanimous decision dismissing all complaints. The written record states that the complaints of pregnancy and maternity discrimination, indirect sex discrimination, and harassment related to sex failed and were dismissed.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was not dismissed. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded and was dismissed. No monetary remedy is recorded in the written judgment.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The published decision therefore records the outcomes, but not the tribunal's detailed reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Judgment describes this complaint as indirect sex discrimination. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Judgment describes this as harassment related to sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed and held the complaint was not well-founded. | 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.