Case 1300149/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1300149/2020
- Decision date
- 7 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Lloyd Signed
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing in consolidated claims 1300149/2020 and 1311062/2020. By consent, the tribunal formally dismissed the second respondent in claim 1300149/2020 and the second and third respondents in claim 1311062/2020 from the proceedings.
The claimant withdrew her complaints of discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010, direct discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010, and indirect discrimination under s.19 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal dismissed those complaints forthwith.
The tribunal also found that the claimant is a disabled person for the purposes of s.6(1) Equality Act 2010, but that she did not meet the s.6(1) definition before 10 October 2018. The impairments giving rise to her disability from that date were dyslexia, anxiety, and depression.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint under s.15 EqA. The claimant withdrew this complaint and the tribunal dismissed it forthwith. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of direct discrimination under s.13 EqA. The claimant withdrew this complaint and the tribunal dismissed it forthwith. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of indirect discrimination under s.19 EqA. The claimant withdrew this complaint and the tribunal dismissed it forthwith. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.