Case 1302130/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Brown v Linfield Care Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1302130/2018
- Decision date
- 11 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr Stanley, Mr Sharma
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Brown
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sitting at Birmingham on 25 and 26 September and 10 and 11 October 2019 unanimously dismissed Mrs T Brown's complaints against Linfield Care Limited. The written record states that the complaints were for constructive unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, and failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010.
The judgment records that each complaint was not well founded and was dismissed. The written decision does not set out detailed reasons in the extracted text, and it notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Complaint pleaded as constructive unfair dismissal; dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of direct disability discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010; dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010; dismissed. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.