Case 3310126/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310126/2021
- Decision date
- 20 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Coll Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr. Dykes, Mrs. Sood
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of race-related harassment and direct race discrimination arising from her employment as IPU Clinical Manager and the termination of her employment, which the respondent said was because her post was redundant. The tribunal recorded that the claimant identified her race as a black woman and considered allegations about comments, treatment during employment, and the redundancy process.
The tribunal found that harassment allegation 5a was well founded, but it was out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. Harassment allegation 5b was also dismissed as out of time, and allegation 5c was not well founded. The tribunal concluded that allegation 5a did not form part of a continuing act ending on or after 1 January 2021.
The direct race discrimination claims were all dismissed as not well founded. In the redundancy-related allegations visible in the text, the tribunal found that the respondent had non-discriminatory reasons for treating the claimant's post as stand-alone and for offering only vacant posts as alternatives.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Race-related harassment allegations 5a and 5b were dismissed as out of time, with no just and equitable extension. Allegation 5c was found not well founded and dismissed. The text states allegation 5a was well founded, but it was still dismissed because it was out of time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | All claims of direct race discrimination, identified as allegations 5c and 13a-j and 13l, were found not well founded and dismissed. Allegation 13k was not pursued. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Equality Act 2010 section 13
- Equality Act 2010 section 26
- Equality Act 2010 section 39(2)
- Equality Act 2010 section 109
- Equality Act 2010 section 136
- Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Dhaliwal
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.