Case 3325491/2019 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 3325491/2019
Decision date: 4 August 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Postle Members
Panel members: Ms J Costley, Mr C Grant

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that the claimant's post of Archives Data Inputter had always been connected to the planned move of the archives service from Shire Hall to Ely, and that the role was funded from the Archive Service Development Budget. It accepted that the claimant had an uneasy relationship with Mr Anderson, but found the redundancy process began because the data input work was no longer required as the move approached, not because of any protected act or protected characteristic.

On victimisation, the tribunal applied the burden of proof under s.136 EqA 2010 and referred to Scott v London Borough of Hillingdon on the need for the alleged victimiser to know of the protected act. It found there was no evidence that Mr Anderson knew of any protected act or that he knew the claimant was alleging discrimination, and it rejected the claimant's assumption that he did. The tribunal also held that the challenged interactions involving Mr Anderson and Mr Akeroyd were not detriments in the Equality Act sense, but were ordinary workplace exchanges or conflict-avoidance measures.

The harassment allegation was based on Mr Anderson's August 2018 email referring to the claimant as a sour and bitter individual. The tribunal held that this was an isolated criticism in an email the claimant did not see, so it could not have had the required purpose or effect, and it was not related to sex. The age discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found the only reason for dismissal was redundancy, and not age, with the younger data inputter also being made redundant.

The unfair dismissal claim failed under s.98(4) ERA 1996. The tribunal found there had been warning, consultation, and a fair redundancy process, including written consultation, an at-risk letter, redundancy notice, and redeployment information. It found the claimant chose not to engage with face-to-face or telephone consultation and that the redundancy was genuine. Employment ended by reason of redundancy at the end of October 2019.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Victimisation	The tribunal found the claimant had not shown Mr Anderson knew of any protected act, so the victimisation allegations failed for want of knowledge and causation. It also rejected the alleged detriments as not amounting to detriments or not being linked to a protected act.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Harassment	The only pleaded harassment allegation identified in the reasons was Mr Anderson's August 2018 email describing the claimant as a sour and bitter individual. The tribunal held that this was an isolated criticism, not seen by the claimant, and not related to sex.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Age discrimination	The tribunal found the dismissal was for redundancy, not age. It noted that another data inputter who was 20 years younger was also made redundant and rejected the suggestion that a later appointment of an archives assistant was relevant.	Dismissed	Age	—
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held there was a genuine redundancy, adequate warning and meaningful consultation, and that the respondent acted reasonably under s.98(4) ERA 1996. It found the claimant did not engage with the process and was offered redeployment assistance.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.