Case 3331172/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Suleiman v And Royal Mail Group Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3331172/2018
- Decision date
- 7 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms J Woodhead, Ms C Tufts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Suleiman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard evidence on oath and read the parties' documents at Reading on 5, 6 and 7 October 2020. The judgment was unanimous, with Employment Judge Mr I Hartley sitting with Ms J Woodhead and Ms C Tufts. The claimant was represented by her sister, with interpreters assisting on 6 and 7 October 2020.
The tribunal determined that Ms N Suleiman was not subjected to pregnancy and maternity discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010. That complaint failed and was dismissed. It also found that she was not subjected to direct race discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, and that complaint was dismissed.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was not subjected to direct sex discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. That complaint also failed and was dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment records that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.