Case 1302540/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hope v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2024
- Case reference
- 1302540/2023
- Decision date
- 12 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
- Venue
- Midlands West
- Panel members
- Ms L Clark, Mr R White
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hope
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the unlawful deduction from wages complaint. It found that the Respondent did not make unauthorised deductions from the Claimant’s wages in the periods 18 January to 13 April 2020, 13 February to 4 March 2022, or 23 to 31 August 2022.
The tribunal also rejected the disability discrimination claim under section 39 of the Equality Act 2010. It found that not granting disability leave and paying less than the Claimant’s normal salary in the relevant periods was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of managing sick leave, ensuring the quality of services to service users, and ensuring a safe and appropriate working environment for employees.
The reasonable adjustments complaint failed because the tribunal found no contravention in not assigning light duties or allowing administrative duties to be completed from home. The harassment allegations based on phone calls said to pressurise the Claimant to return to work and on recording him as being on sick leave on 27 and 28 October 2022 were also rejected.
For the December 2020 remark by Governor Alice James, the tribunal found that the words amounted to harassment related to disability. That complaint was nevertheless dismissed because it was not presented within the statutory time limit and the tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time. All of the Claimant’s complaints were therefore dismissed and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found no unauthorised deductions from wages in the periods 18 January to 13 April 2020, 13 February to 4 March 2022, or 23 to 31 August 2022. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal rejected the section 39 Equality Act 2010 complaint that the Respondent discriminated because of something arising in consequence of disability by not granting disability leave and paying less than normal salary in the relevant periods. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal rejected the reasonable adjustments complaint that the Respondent should have assigned light duties or allowed administrative duties to be done from home in the relevant periods. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal rejected the harassment allegations relating to disability based on phone calls pressuring the Claimant to return to work and recording him as being on sick leave on 27 and 28 October 2022. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found that Governor Alice James's December 2020 remark, 'I don’t care what the doctor or nurses say, we are your employer and we are the ones paying you, not the doctors', amounted to harassment related to disability, but the complaint was presented out of time and the tribunal did not extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Disability |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims
- s.40 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
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.