Employment tribunal

[Emmzzi]

By the way, what race is your friend

 

There is a stereotype that there is a prevalence of teenage and/or underage pregnancy amongst certain races

 

If your friend is from one of those races then that is clear case of racial discrimination

 

 

Like white girls on council estates?

[Emmzzi]

 

Like someone from the Traveller community

 

Like black girls on council estate

 

 

So not related to a specific ethnicity at all - just housing choice and wealth, neither of which are protected characteristics.

 

 

I'm all for fighting against dsicrimination, but at this point with the info we have, that's just inventing it.

[Emmzzi]

But there is a differnce between generl discrimination, and the legal definition of discrimination.

 

Which is why you need a lawyer.

Don't get sucked into relying on case law which it's easy to misinterpret or apply incorrectly.

Get a lawyer, or don't even start on this course.

[Emmzzi]

 

 

 

Hanif Mohammed T/A Mohammed & Co Solicitors v Jackson UKEAT/0370/12/SM - The claimant worked at a solicitors firm when she became pregnant. She had a termination and was off work for a few weeks suffering from the physical and psychological effects of the termination and the stress at work.

 

 

 

Thompson v London Central Bus Company Ltd UKEAT/0108/15/DM - His claim of victimisation "on an associative basis" was struck out at the ET.

 

 

Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd UKEAT/0007/12/SM - The tribunal held that the employee's case was "on all fours" with Martin (above) and upheld his victimisation claim. The EAT overturned the tribunal's decision, (ie he lost!)

 

 

 

I believe case laws are best as they give insight into the minds of the judges

 

 

I beleive they show in a majority of cases the claimant loses. Got any better cases, more relevant to the situation here?

[Emmzzi]

 

Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd is the case law in support of that law

 

 

 

 

 

Overturned at appeal. Thus not helpful to the OP.

[Emmzzi]

 

 

My job is just to point you in the direction of relevant case laws

 

 

 

1) it’s not your job, it’s your hobby

2) has the OPs friend put in SEVEN ET claims and TEN grievances? Because that is what the case you are quoting is about. And do they also fancy the stress of months and months in court?

[Emmzzi]

My very best advice is not to quote case law you don't have a full understanding of because the judge will see it as timewasting.

 

Stick to the known facts. Keep it simple and focused. Don't ramble. Don't use law you are not sure of.

 

Because suggesting your case is just like case X when it is not, is just handing ammunition to opposing counsel to get it struck out at first read, with no hearing at all. Opposing counsel love to make you look stupid. Quoting incorrect facts is like loading their gun.

 

Stick to the knitting, There has been harassment. The internal processes have been followed by your friend in the hope of attaining justice and a good working relationship going forward. You believe the outcome to be unfair.

[Emmzzi]

Good advice, will take it to heart, thank you

 

I hope you do get a no win no fee offer because that's usually a decent sign you may have a case. Keep us posted!

[Emmzzi]

There is no right to be acompanied to an investigatory interview; only the disciplinary itself.

 

There is no right to reduced hours.

 

There is no right to know if peers have been disciplined - it’s private!

 

There seem to be things you think are unfair, which may be so, but that does not make them illegal or unlawful.