Loading…

Sex discrimination cases against The Claimant’s claims for breaches of s39, 40, and 55 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded because: 1.1. The Claimant’s allegations of direct disability Discrimination in breach of s13 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.2. The Claimant’s allegations of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of her disabilities in breach of s15 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.3. The Claimant’s allegations that the Respondents failed to make reasonable adjustments in breach of s20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.4. The Claimant’s allegations that the Respondents subjected the Claimant to harassment in breach of s26 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.5. The Claimant’s allegations that the Respondents victimised the Claimant in breach of s27 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; Consequently, all discrimination allegations against both Respondents fail and are dismissed. — employment tribunal data | Tribunal Watch

Employer × claim type

Sex discrimination cases against The Claimant’s claims for breaches of s39, 40, and 55 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded because: 1.1. The Claimant’s allegations of direct disability Discrimination in breach of s13 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.2. The Claimant’s allegations of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of her disabilities in breach of s15 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.3. The Claimant’s allegations that the Respondents failed to make reasonable adjustments in breach of s20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.4. The Claimant’s allegations that the Respondents subjected the Claimant to harassment in breach of s26 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.5. The Claimant’s allegations that the Respondents victimised the Claimant in breach of s27 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; Consequently, all discrimination allegations against both Respondents fail and are dismissed.

Tribunal Watch has indexed 1 case involving sex discrimination claims against The Claimant’s claims for breaches of s39, 40, and 55 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded because: 1.1. The Claimant’s allegations of direct disability Discrimination in breach of s13 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.2. The Claimant’s allegations of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of her disabilities in breach of s15 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.3. The Claimant’s allegations that the Respondents failed to make reasonable adjustments in breach of s20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.4. The Claimant’s allegations that the Respondents subjected the Claimant to harassment in breach of s26 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.5. The Claimant’s allegations that the Respondents victimised the Claimant in breach of s27 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; Consequently, all discrimination allegations against both Respondents fail and are dismissed., out of 1 total case on record for this employer. See also all sex discrimination cases across every employer.

Sex discrimination cases: 1
Total awarded: —
Share of employer caseload: 100%

All sex discrimination cases against The Claimant’s claims for breaches of s39, 40, and 55 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded because: 1.1. The Claimant’s allegations of direct disability Discrimination in breach of s13 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.2. The Claimant’s allegations of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of her disabilities in breach of s15 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.3. The Claimant’s allegations that the Respondents failed to make reasonable adjustments in breach of s20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.4. The Claimant’s allegations that the Respondents subjected the Claimant to harassment in breach of s26 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.5. The Claimant’s allegations that the Respondents victimised the Claimant in breach of s27 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; Consequently, all discrimination allegations against both Respondents fail and are dismissed.

1 case · chronological

Case ref.	Decided	Jurisdiction	Claimant	Claim types	Award
1306537/2020	28 February 2024	England & Wales	Ms B Respondent 1: Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Respondent 2: NHS England Respondent 3: No longer a party to the proceedings Respondent 4: Birmingham City Council (Claims against this Respondent had settled).	Sex discrimination, Unfair dismissal, Working time regulations	—

Methodology

This page lists the subset of The Claimant’s claims for breaches of s39, 40, and 55 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded because: 1.1. The Claimant’s allegations of direct disability Discrimination in breach of s13 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.2. The Claimant’s allegations of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of her disabilities in breach of s15 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.3. The Claimant’s allegations that the Respondents failed to make reasonable adjustments in breach of s20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.4. The Claimant’s allegations that the Respondents subjected the Claimant to harassment in breach of s26 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; 1.5. The Claimant’s allegations that the Respondents victimised the Claimant in breach of s27 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded; Consequently, all discrimination allegations against both Respondents fail and are dismissed.'s tribunal cases tagged with sex discrimination in the §4.4 claim-type taxonomy. A single judgment frequently combines multiple claim types, so the same case may appear on more than one claim-type page. Award figures are taken from the remedy section of each judgment where present; cases without a quantified award — because the tribunal only determined liability, or because the remedy hearing is pending — are listed with no award amount. See how the data is built.