Claimant v Cardiff and Vale College
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claim for constructive unfair dismissal was not well founded and dismissed it. Oral reasons were given at the hearing explaining why the claimant had not established a fundamental breach of contract or that they resigned in response to such a breach.
The tribunal found the claim for direct age discrimination was not well founded and dismissed it. Oral reasons were given at the hearing explaining why the claimant had not established less favourable treatment because of age.
The tribunal found the claim for direct disability discrimination was not well founded and dismissed it. Oral reasons were given at the hearing explaining why the claimant had not established less favourable treatment because of disability.
The tribunal found the claim for age-related harassment was not well founded and dismissed it. Oral reasons were given at the hearing explaining why the conduct complained of did not amount to harassment related to age.
The tribunal found the claim for disability-related harassment was not well founded and dismissed it. Oral reasons were given at the hearing explaining why the conduct complained of did not amount to harassment related to disability.
Facts
Ms Adams brought claims against Cardiff and Vale College including constructive unfair dismissal and discrimination on grounds of age and disability, as well as harassment related to these protected characteristics. The case was heard over four days in December 2025 before a full tribunal panel. Ms Adams represented herself while the College was represented by Counsel.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all of Ms Adams' claims, finding them not well founded. The tribunal gave oral reasons at the hearing explaining why the constructive dismissal claim failed and why the discrimination and harassment claims were not made out. All claims were dismissed.
Practical note
A self-represented claimant bringing multiple discrimination claims against an educational institution represented by Counsel was unsuccessful on all claims after a four-day hearing.
Case details
- Case number
- 6012662/2025
- Decision date
- 4 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No