Case 6001552/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms R Blythe (solicitor) — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001552/2023
- Decision date
- 29 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on 22 February 2024 before Employment Judge Davies. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Ms Blythe. The tribunal noted that the claimant had worked as an agency worker from 12 January 2023 and as an employee from 1 April 2023. The case arose from her dismissal during probation after a complaint about a Year 8 science lesson on 10 May 2023, and the dismissal was upheld on appeal on 20 June 2023. The tribunal applied the strike-out authorities in Rule 37, Balls, North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias, Anyanwu, Mechkarov and Ahir, and the amendment principles in Selkent, Cocking and Galilee.
The tribunal struck out the sexual orientation and religion or belief complaints. It held that the questions asked about how the claimant identified and about her relationship with her cat followed a reported PHSE comment, so there was no reasonable prospect of proving that they were because of sexual orientation or that they amounted to harassment. It also held that the complaint based on Mr Watkin using the term 'casting' did not fit the legal definitions of religion or belief discrimination or harassment.
The victimisation and whistleblowing complaints were also struck out. The tribunal held that the first two alleged protected acts were not protected acts, and that most of the alleged disclosures were not protected disclosures. Even where one alleged protected act and one alleged disclosure might arguably have met the statutory definition, the tribunal held there was no reasonable prospect of proving that the respondent's response, including the description of the claimant's comments as racist or a racial slur and the dismissal, was caused by those matters rather than by the claimant's conduct in the science lesson.
The sex discrimination complaint was not allowed to proceed. The tribunal held that the claimant's pleaded complaint that she was pressured to wear trousers and high cut tops had no reasonable prospect of success, and that the more specific allegations about Ms Stokes were new matters raised late and should not be added by amendment. It also held that the unamended sex complaint was out of time and that there was no basis for extending time on a just and equitable basis. The judgment therefore struck out the case in full and recorded no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The tribunal held there was no reasonable prospect of proving that the questions about how the claimant identified and her relationship with her cat were less favourable treatment because of sexual orientation. It found the questions followed a reported PHSE comment, not the claimant's orientation. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal held there was no reasonable prospect of proving that the same questions amounted to unwanted conduct related to sexual orientation or created a hostile or humiliating environment. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | This complaint was not included in the original claim form and was sought by amendment. The tribunal held that Mr Watkin's use of the term 'casting' did not amount to less favourable treatment because of religion or belief. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal held there was no reasonable prospect of showing that the 'casting' comment or related questioning was unwanted conduct related to religion or belief. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | The claimant's pleaded complaint that she was pressured to wear trousers and high cut tops had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal also refused permission to add the more specific March 2023 allegations about Ms Stokes, and held the unamended complaint was out of time. | Struck out |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias
- Anyanwu v South Bank Students' Union
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA
- Ahir v British Airways plc
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v More
- Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd
- Galilee v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
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.