Case 3322754/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Potter v EasyJet Airline Company Limited Heard via Cloud Video Platform (Watford) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3322754/2021
- Decision date
- 1 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Potter
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Davidson, heard remotely by Cloud Video Platform with the parties' consent. The respondent applied to strike out the claimant's indirect sex discrimination, victimisation and whistleblowing claims, and that application was dismissed. The judgment does not determine the merits of those claims; it records only that they were not struck out at this stage.
The claimant's separate costs application also failed and was dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment, and the record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The respondent's application to strike out the indirect sex discrimination claim was dismissed at a preliminary hearing; the claim was not finally determined on its merits in this judgment. | Other | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The respondent's application to strike out the victimisation claim was dismissed at a preliminary hearing; the claim was not finally determined on its merits in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The respondent's application to strike out the whistleblowing claim was dismissed at a preliminary hearing; the claim was not finally determined on its merits in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
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.