Case 3314735/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Brett and Mr K Brett v Khi-Ro Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3314735/2019
- Decision date
- 11 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Members
- Panel members
- Ms E Deem, Mr SJ Holford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the first claimant was unfairly dismissed and automatically unfairly dismissed because the principal reason for her dismissal was that she had made protected disclosures. It also found that she was dismissed in breach of contract, suffered unlawful deductions from wages up to 22 January 2019, and had not been paid outstanding holiday pay. The second claimant was found to have been unfairly dismissed and dismissed in breach of contract, with unlawful deductions from wages up to 4 March 2019 and unpaid holiday pay to that date.
Both claimants succeeded in direct discrimination claims on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. The tribunal found that in October 2018 Kate Foreman told them that their transgender son was evil and going to hell, and that they were going to hell for supporting him. The tribunal also found harassment: Mr Foreman was silent and did not intervene while Mrs Foreman was abusing the claimants in that way.
The respondent did not pursue the timeliness point, and the list of issues did not refer to it. Insofar as it was necessary, the tribunal extended time for presentation of the discrimination claims because it was just and equitable to do so, noting that the matters had been fully rehearsed in evidence and there was no suggestion of prejudice. The tribunal dismissed the remainder of the claimants' complaints and directed that remedy would be decided at a hearing on 26 and 27 April 2021.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the first and second claimants were unfairly dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The first claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed because the principal reason for dismissal was that she had made protected disclosures. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that both claimants were dismissed in breach of contract. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The first claimant had unpaid wages to 22 January 2019 and the second claimant had unpaid wages to 4 March 2019. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found outstanding holiday pay was due to the first claimant to 22 January 2019 and to the second claimant to 4 March 2019. | Upheld | — | — |
| Gender reassignment discrimination | Both claimants succeeded in direct discrimination claims arising from comments made in October 2018 about their transgender son. | Upheld | Gender reassignment | — |
| Harassment | Both claimants succeeded in harassment claims based on Mr Foreman's silence and failure to intervene while Mrs Foreman was abusing them. |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable extension of time
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.