Case 3310694/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3310694/2022
- Decision date
- 20 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr M Bhatti MBE, Mrs G Bhatt MBE
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that, after case management clarification, the claims for final determination were public interest disclosure detriments, harassment related to disability, and harassment related to being transgender. It dismissed the public interest disclosure detriment claims as not well-founded.
On disability-related harassment, the tribunal found that the discussion about the respondent's internal process for placing a service user into temporary accommodation was not unwanted conduct related to disability or to the claimant's autism. It found that Ms Begum was brought into the call to advise on outstanding actions and that the discussion did not refer to autism expressly or impliedly.
On harassment related to being transgender, the tribunal found that Ms Rodriguez sought clarification about whether the claimant should be referred to as Mandi or Andy for rota consistency. It found that the discussion, though related to transgender, was not unwanted conduct and did not have the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Judgment states the public interest disclosure detriment claims were not well-founded and dismissed; the detailed reasoning is in the truncated middle of the supplied text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Gender reassignment | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- s43C
- ERA 1996, s 47B
- Equality Act 2010 section 26
- section 123 of the Equality Act 2010
- Grant v HM Land Registry and others
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.