Case 3313145/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Gloag, counsel For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3313145/2020
- Decision date
- 27 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mr L Hoey, Mr A Kapur
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr A Gloag, counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Reading Employment Tribunal, Employment Judge George, sitting with members Mr L Hoey and Mr A Kapur, heard Dr Jennifer Fraser's complaints against the Parochial Church Council of St Mary and St Peter, Staines and Reverend Jonathan Samadi. The tribunal dismissed the sex discrimination and race discrimination complaints, stating that they were not well founded.
The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim. It found that, if a fair process had been followed, there was a 40% chance that the claimant would have been dismissed by reason of redundancy.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it was just and equitable to apply a 40% deduction to compensation to reflect the chance of a redundancy dismissal in any event. The written record states that the remaining issues were to be determined at a remedy hearing, so no final monetary award is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found the sex discrimination complaint was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the race discrimination complaint was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It found that, had a fair process taken place, there was a 40% chance the claimant would have been dismissed by reason of redundancy, and directed a 40% deduction from compensation to reflect that chance. | Upheld | — | — |
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.