Cases3312327/2023

Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited

9 January 2025Before Employment Judge BradfordWatfordremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Indirect Discrimination(age)failed

The tribunal dismissed the claim of indirect age discrimination, finding it not well-founded. The judgment was delivered orally at the hearing with written reasons available on request.

Victimisationfailed

The tribunal dismissed the victimisation claim under the Equality Act 2010, finding it not well-founded. The judgment was delivered orally at the hearing with written reasons available on request.

Whistleblowingfailed

The tribunal dismissed the claim of detriment for making a protected disclosure under s48 ERA 1996, finding it not well-founded. The judgment was delivered orally at the hearing with written reasons available on request.

Facts

Mr Marshall brought claims against Royal Mail Group Limited alleging indirect age discrimination, victimisation under the Equality Act 2010, and detriment for making protected disclosures under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The case was heard over four days via video hearing at Watford Employment Tribunal before a full panel.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all three claims, finding them not well-founded. The tribunal delivered its judgment orally at the hearing with written reasons available upon request within 14 days.

Practical note

All three claims brought by the claimant against Royal Mail Group Limited failed on their merits after a four-day full hearing.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.19Equality Act 2010 s.27Equality Act 2010 s.39Equality Act 2010 s.41Employment Rights Act 1996 s.48Employment Rights Act 1996 s.43B

Case details

Case number
3312327/2023
Decision date
9 January 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
logistics
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister