Claimant v Stichting Female Journalists Network
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed on 30 April 2020 because she had done something in connection with the Equality Act 2010 on 27 April 2020. This constituted unlawful victimisation under s27 Equality Act 2010, as the dismissal was because of the protected act.
The tribunal found that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed on 30 April 2020. However, no separate compensation was awarded because compensation had already been provided for the victimisation claim arising from the same dismissal.
The tribunal found that the dismissal was not automatically unfair following assertion of relevant statutory rights. The tribunal did not find sufficient evidence to support this claim.
The claimant alleged unfair dismissal for the reason of political opinions or affiliation. The tribunal found this claim was not well-founded and dismissed it.
The claimant alleged less favourable treatment because of perceived race. The tribunal found this claim was not well-founded and dismissed it.
Facts
The claimant was employed by the Stichting Female Journalists Network, a charity in the media sector. On 27 April 2020, she did something in connection with the Equality Act 2010, which constituted a protected act. Three days later, on 30 April 2020, she was dismissed. The claimant brought multiple claims including victimisation, wrongful dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, ordinary unfair dismissal for political opinions, and race discrimination.
Decision
The tribunal upheld the victimisation claim, finding that the claimant was dismissed because of the protected act on 27 April 2020. The tribunal also found wrongful dismissal but awarded no separate compensation. The claims for automatic unfair dismissal, ordinary unfair dismissal for political opinions, and perceived race discrimination all failed. Total compensation of £35,961.97 was awarded including injury to feelings and interest.
Practical note
Dismissing an employee shortly after they engage in a protected act under the Equality Act 2010 creates a strong inference of victimisation, even where a self-represented claimant faces professional legal representation.
Award breakdown
Vento band: lower
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2303229/2020
- Decision date
- 20 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- media
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No