Case 6005760/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Tauro v Career Camp CIC — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005760/2024
- Decision date
- 12 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Mr S Hearn, Ms J Tombs
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Tauro
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at London Central on 6 and 7 March 2025 before Employment Judge A M Snelson, with members Mr S Hearn and Ms J Tombs. The Claimant, Miss M Tauro, and Mr E Baker, Director, appeared for the Respondent, Career Camp CIC.
The tribunal's unanimous judgment was that the Claimant's complaints under the Equality Act 2010 were not well-founded. The judgment does not set out separate findings for individual Equality Act issues in the extracted text, but it records that the complaints as a whole failed.
As a result, the proceedings were dismissed. The judgment does not record any monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states only that the Claimant's complaints under the Equality Act 2010 were not well-founded and the proceedings were dismissed. The gov.uk listing for this case identifies age discrimination as one of the listed categories, but the PDF text does not separate the Equality Act complaints claim by claim. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states only that the Claimant's complaints under the Equality Act 2010 were not well-founded and the proceedings were dismissed. The gov.uk listing for this case identifies race discrimination as one of the listed categories, but the PDF text does not separate the Equality Act complaints claim by claim. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.