Case 3314453/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Mr A. Clark, Solicitor — 2024
- Case reference
- 3314453/2022
- Decision date
- 3 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- Mr C Davie, Ms C Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was employed as a Secure Care Officer at Oakhill and was dismissed after an incident in which one child entered another child's bedroom. The Tribunal found that the Claimant did not notice the other child entering the corridor or the bedroom, and that there were failings by multiple people as well as a lack of specific protocols and written guidance.
The Tribunal found problems with the disciplinary process, including that the first allegation was changed from deliberately allowing two children into the same room to negligence, and that the appeal did not give the Claimant a proper opportunity to challenge his dismissal. It also found that the allegation concerning falsification of records did not involve dishonesty or lack of integrity.
Despite those process failings, the Tribunal accepted the Respondent's non-discriminatory explanation for the different treatment of the Claimant and his comparator, Ms Brown. It found that the Claimant's dismissal and the decision not to uphold his appeal were in no sense because he was a man, and dismissed the sex discrimination claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The final hearing determined whether the Claimant was discriminated against because of sex by being dismissed. The claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment records that the race discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal at a case management hearing on 3 July 2023. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
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.