Jet2.com Ltd
Case Summary
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints of direct discrimination and discriminatory constructive dismissal on grounds of sex.
Key Issues
- •Did the Respondent treat the Claimant less favourably on account of her sex?
- •If so, was such treatment a detriment in the circumstances?
- •Are AB and CD appropriate comparators there being no material difference between their circumstances?
- •Was the Claimant treated less favourably than her comparators in this respect?
- •Was such treatment because of the Claimant’s sex?
Claim Types
Decision Text
E.T. Z4 (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) 5 Case No: 4107156/2023 Held in Edinburgh on 3 and 4 June 2024 and members’ meeting on 5 June 2024 10 Employment Judge M Sutherland Tribunal Member S Downie Tribunal Member L Grime 15 M McKay Claimant Represented by A Buchanan, Solicitor 20 Jet2.com Limited Respondent Represented by 25 C Ashiru, Counsel Instructed by Bird and Bird LLP 30 JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL 35 The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that the complaints of discrimination do not succeed and are accordingly dismissed. 40 Case No. 4107156/2023 Page 2 REASONS Introduction 1. The claimant made complaints of direct discrimination and discriminatory constructive dismissal on grounds of sex. The complaints were denied by the respondent 5 2. The parties lodged a joint bundle of documents. The Claimant gave evidence on her own behalf and called Martin McKay (her husband) and Kim Masterton (ex-Senior Cabin Crew) to give evidence. The respondent called Stewart McKenzie (Deputy Cabin Crew Base Manager) and Kelly Bolton (Cabin Services Regional Manager) to give evidence. 10 3. By separate order the names of the comparators were redacted. List of Issues 4. By agreement of the parties the issues to be determined in this case were as follows – Time limits 15 a. Are any of the claims of discrimination relied upon submitted out of time? b. Are the alleged acts of discrimination relied on part of a continuing course of conduct to allow the Tribunal to have jurisdiction under section 123 (3) (a) of the Equality Act 2010 to preside over the matters alleged? c. Failing that, is it just and equitable for the Tribunal to extend time to 20 allow the Claimant’s claim to proceed under section 123 (1) (b) of the Equality Act 2010? Direct discrimination d. Did the R...
Employer
Employment Details
- Industry
- airline
Case Details
- Case Number
- 4107156/2023
- Decision Date
- 05/07/2024
- Published
- 29/07/2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- M Sutherland