Case 3322639/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Chamay v Société Air France — 2022
- Case reference
- 3322639/2021
- Decision date
- 14 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bartlett
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Chamay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 14 October 2022, Employment Judge Bartlett considered the claimant's complaints of victimisation under s27 Equality Act 2010 arising from her concerns about the dismissal of Jamal Abdi. The tribunal concluded that the complaints had no reasonable prospects of success and struck them out.
The reason given was that the claimant was unable to identify a protected act. The judge recorded that repeated questions were asked about where the claimant had raised concerns about race, colour, discrimination or prejudicial treatment.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant could only refer to what was implied by what she said, and held that this was insufficient to amount to a protected act. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Complaint under s27 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal struck out the victimisation complaints relating to the claimant raising concerns about race discrimination in connection with the dismissal of Jamal Abdi because they had no reasonable prospects of success. The judge said the claimant was unable to identify a protected act, despite repeated questions about where she had raised concerns about race, colour, discrimination or prejudicial treatment. | Struck out | — | — |
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.