Case 1300968/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A. Parr, in person For the v Ms A. Neukirch, solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 1300968/2019
- Decision date
- 10 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dean Note
- Panel members
- Ms K Ahmad, Dr G Hammersley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A. Parr, in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Birmingham held that Raccortubi Norsk Limited had not discriminated against Mr Parr by failing to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. That complaint was dismissed.
The tribunal also found that Mr Parr's complaint of unlawful discrimination because of the protected characteristic of disability did not succeed and was dismissed. The judgment records no monetary award, and it states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint that the respondent failed to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unlawful discrimination because of the protected characteristic of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.