Claimant v Your Choice (Barnet) Limited

The Tribunal found the complaints of direct race discrimination were not well-founded after an 11-day hearing examining the evidence. The claims failed on their merits following full consideration of the facts and law.

The Tribunal found the complaints of direct age discrimination were not well-founded after an 11-day hearing examining the evidence. The claims failed on their merits following full consideration of the facts and law.

The Tribunal found the complaints of direct disability discrimination were not well-founded after an 11-day hearing examining the evidence. The claims failed on their merits following full consideration of the facts and law.

The Tribunal found the complaints of harassment related to race were not well-founded. After hearing evidence over 11 days, the Tribunal concluded the conduct alleged did not constitute harassment or was not related to the protected characteristic.

The Tribunal found the complaints of harassment related to age were not well-founded. After hearing evidence over 11 days, the Tribunal concluded the conduct alleged did not constitute harassment or was not related to the protected characteristic.

The Tribunal found the complaints of harassment related to disability were not well-founded. After hearing evidence over 11 days, the Tribunal concluded the conduct alleged did not constitute harassment or was not related to the protected characteristic.

The Tribunal found the complaint of victimisation was not well-founded. The Tribunal determined that either no protected acts had been done or that any treatment was not because of protected acts.

The Tribunal found the complaint of being subjected to a detriment for making protected disclosures was not well-founded. The Tribunal determined that either no qualifying protected disclosures were made or that any detriments were not on the ground of such disclosures.

The Tribunal found the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability (section 15 Equality Act) was not well-founded. The Tribunal concluded either that the treatment did not occur, was not unfavourable, or was not because of something arising from disability, or was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The Tribunal found the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was not well-founded. The Tribunal concluded that either the PCPs were not established, the claimant was not placed at a substantial disadvantage, or reasonable adjustments were made or would not have alleviated any disadvantage.

The Tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was not well-founded. The Tribunal determined that either no deductions occurred, any deductions were authorised, or the claim was out of time.

The Tribunal found the complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal was not well-founded. The Tribunal concluded that the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason and that the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer in the circumstances.

The Tribunal found the complaint of automatically unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures was not well-founded. The Tribunal determined that either no qualifying protected disclosures were made or that the principal reason for dismissal was not the making of protected disclosures.

Claim 3308905/2023 was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant.