Case 4120669/2018 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: S/4120669/20185 Held at Dundee on January 2019 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Miss Rhona Wands v Limited (in Liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 4120669/2018
- Decision date
- 30 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alexander Meiklejohn
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: S/4120669/20185 Held at Dundee on January 2019 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Miss Rhona Wands
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 25 January 2019, the claimant confirmed that the protected characteristic relied on for her claims under sections 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010 was sex.
The tribunal therefore dismissed those claims only to the extent that they related to the protected characteristic of pregnancy and maternity. The judgment gives no remedy award and no further reasons beyond that confirmation.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment records that the claimant confirmed the protected characteristic for her Equality Act 2010 section 26 claim was sex, and dismisses the claim only to the extent it related to pregnancy and maternity. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records that the claimant confirmed the protected characteristic for her Equality Act 2010 section 27 claim was sex, and dismisses the claim only to the extent it related to pregnancy and maternity. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Sections 26 and 27 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.