Case 3310719/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Rogers v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310719/2021
- Decision date
- 19 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms G Binks MBE, Mr D Sagar
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms H Rogers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Custodial Manager employed by the respondent, brought claims of direct race discrimination, direct sex discrimination, racial harassment and victimisation. The tribunal recorded that her employment was continuing and that the hearing was to address liability only, so remedy issues were not determined.
The tribunal found that the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. It concluded that only allegations relating to an email on 20 April 2021 were in time, that the remaining allegations did not form part of a continuing act, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
On the substantive complaints, the tribunal dismissed the direct race discrimination, direct sex discrimination, harassment related to race and victimisation complaints as not well-founded. Mr Sagar gave minority reasons on some factual issues and limitation, but the judgment records the dismissal of all claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the complaint of direct race discrimination as not well-founded. It also found the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the complaint of direct sex discrimination as not well-founded. It also found the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal dismissed the complaint of harassment related to race as not well-founded. The judgment states this complaint was limited to specified factual allegations in the list of issues. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal dismissed the complaint of victimisation as not well-founded. The judgment states this complaint was limited to specified factual allegations and alleged protected acts. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- s.140B Equality Act 2010
- continuing act
- just and equitable extension of time
- reason why test
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.