Case 6000194/2024 · Employment Tribunal
CL v Mitie Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000194/2024
- Decision date
- 25 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mr Richardson, Mr English
Parties
2 namedClaimant
CL
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a Security Officer at Southampton University Hospital NHS Trust. The tribunal recorded complaints of unfair dismissal, discrimination on grounds of age, race and sex, harassment related to age, race and sex, victimisation, and detriment on grounds of public interest disclosure.
The tribunal found that the claimant was harassed by the respondent by conduct related to sex, age and race. Its overview says it largely accepted the claimant's factual allegations and found that harassment occurred and that she was constructively dismissed due to that harassment.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's other claims. It said the whistleblowing and victimisation claims were dismissed because the proven acts of detriment were not because she had blown the whistle or done a protected act, and that the direct discrimination claims failed. Remedy was adjourned to 24 October 2025.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The formal judgment states that the claimant was harassed by conduct related to sex; remedy was adjourned. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The formal judgment states that the claimant was harassed by conduct related to age; remedy was adjourned. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Harassment | The formal judgment states that the claimant was harassed by conduct related to race; remedy was adjourned. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The formal judgment states that the claimant's other claims are dismissed. The reasons overview says the tribunal found the claimant was constructively dismissed due to harassment, but the available text does not show a separate upheld unfair dismissal award or remedy. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The reasons overview states that the claims of direct discrimination fail. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The reasons overview states that the claims of direct discrimination fail. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The reasons overview states that the victimisation claim was dismissed because the proven acts of detriment were not because the claimant had done a protected act. |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Wisniewski v Central Manchester Health Authority [1998] PIQR 324
- Equality Act 2010 s.26
- Equality Act 2010 s.13
- Equality Act 2010 s.27
- Employment Rights Act 1996 s.47B
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.