Case 1302794/2022 · Employment Tribunal
MR STANLEY MORGAN v DHL Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302794/2022
- Decision date
- 28 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N. Clarke
- Panel members
- Dr M. Stewart, Mr R. Virdee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MR STANLEY MORGAN
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the case in person at Birmingham over 19, 20, 21 and 22 September 2023, before Employment Judge N. Clarke, Dr M. Stewart and Mr R. Virdee. The claimant appeared on his own behalf and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The claims for direct disability discrimination, direct race discrimination and discrimination arising from disability were not upheld. The claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments was upheld.
For the reasonable adjustment claim, the Tribunal awarded £11,685.83 in total, made up of £387.72 financial losses with £24.69 interest and £10,000 injury to feelings with £1,273.42 interest.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was not upheld. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination was not upheld. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability was not upheld. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments was upheld. | Upheld | Disability | £11,686 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,686
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £388
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.