Case 3322730/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms Jervis (in house representative) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3322730/2021
- Decision date
- 15 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge King Members
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
- Panel members
- Ms S Elizabeth, Mr D Hart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal by Employment Judge King, sitting with Ms S Elizabeth and Mr D Hart, on 25, 26, 27 and 28 June 2024. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Ms Jervis.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal was not well founded and dismissed it. It also held that the claimant’s claims for direct race discrimination and for harassment related to race were not well founded and dismissed those claims.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties. No monetary remedy was recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race; the judgment records it as dismissed without separate written reasons. | Dismissed | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.