Case 4123712/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Loading page content.
TopCase 4123712/2018 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Cases nos 4123712/2018 and 4100596/2020 Held at Glasgow on 10, 11, 12, and March, November and 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and December 2020 (P) Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Tribunal Members: Ms N Elliot Mr A Grant Miss Maureen Craig
The claimant brought claims of direct sex discrimination and victimisation. The direct discrimination claim concerned being asked to visit the Bearsden Road property in October 2017. The tribunal found that the circumstances in which male colleagues had been accompanied by Mr Prescott were materially different from the claimant's proposed visit, and that she was not treated less favourably because of sex.
The tribunal found that the claimant had done protected acts from 7 November 2017 onward, including making allegations of sex discrimination, bullying and harassment. It considered the alleged detriments individually, including disciplinary action, additional workload, the handling of her complaint by Mr Sawers, leave approval arrangements, Christmas Eve cover by Mr Prescott, the stairwell incident, relocation of geographical area, occupational health referral, the office move, and Mr Crawshaw's role in absence management.
The tribunal dismissed the victimisation claims. It found no relevant detriment in several matters, no causal link to protected acts in others, and accepted non-victimisation explanations including administrative delay, routine management arrangements, restructuring, and absence management concerns. The complaint concerning Mr Clarke's investigation was withdrawn. The tribunal also held that the direct sex discrimination claim and some earlier victimisation allegations were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 concerning the instruction to visit the Bearsden Road property. The tribunal found no less favourable treatment because the circumstances of the proposed comparators were materially different, and the claim was also time barred. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation claims under section 27 Equality Act 2010 based on alleged detriments following protected acts. The tribunal found that the alleged detriments were either not detriments, not caused by protected acts, withdrawn in one respect, or time barred in respect of earlier matters. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
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.