Case 4103687/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Member Mr P O’Hagan Tribunal Member Mr D Frew Mr D Odigie v Stirling Council — 2019
- Case reference
- 4103687/2019
- Decision date
- 17 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe Tribunal
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Mr P O’Hagan, Mr D Frew
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member Mr P O’Hagan Tribunal Member Mr D Frew Mr D Odigie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal first considered time limits for the complaint of direct race discrimination relating to the accuracy of interview feedback. It found that this complaint was not presented within the primary period under section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010, but was presented within a period the Tribunal considered just and equitable under section 123(1)(b).
The Tribunal then determined the merits of the direct race discrimination complaints. It unanimously found that none of the complaints were well-founded and dismissed them all.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment records multiple complaints of direct race discrimination. It specifically addresses limitation for the complaint concerning accuracy of interview feedback, finding it was presented within a just and equitable period under section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010, but then dismisses all direct race discrimination complaints as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 123 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010
- section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010
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.