Case 3314028/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Litigant in person v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3314028/2021
- Decision date
- 17 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shrimplin Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr Williams, Ms Omer
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Litigant in person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford Employment Tribunal, after hearings on 1, 2, 3 and 17 August 2023 and an oral judgment on 17 August 2023, the tribunal found that Ms Linda Ofosuah was the subject of sexual harassment as defined under s26 Equality Act 2010. The extracted text records the conduct as occurring between 23 December 2020 and 17 February 2020.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment and that the s109 Equality Act 2010 defence applied, so the respondent was not responsible for the employee's unwanted conduct. The direct discrimination claim under s13 Equality Act 2010, brought on the same allegations, was dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the extracted judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal found the claimant was subject to sexual harassment as defined under s26 Equality Act 2010, but held that the respondent had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment and that the s109 defence applied, so the respondent was not responsible for the employee's unwanted conduct. The extracted text records the conduct as occurring between 23 December 2020 and 17 February 2020. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct discrimination under s13 Equality Act 2010 based on the same allegations was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s26 Equality Act 2010
- s13 Equality Act 2010
- s109 Equality Act 2010 reasonable steps defence
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.