Case 1302891/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Dugmore v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 1302891/2022
- Decision date
- 30 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
- Venue
- Midlands West
- Panel members
- Mrs J Ratnayake-Kingsley, Mr P Wilkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Dugmore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent conceded that the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 from 11 January 2022 until 4 April 2022. The tribunal found that she was not disabled within that definition from 11 February 2021 to 10 January 2022 and, in any event, that the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that she was disabled during that earlier period.
Several disability-related complaints were dismissed on withdrawal. The tribunal dismissed the remaining Equality Act complaints, finding that the respondent had not directly discriminated, indirectly discriminated, failed to make reasonable adjustments, discriminated because of something arising in consequence of disability, victimised, or harassed the claimant.
The tribunal also found that the respondent did not dismiss the claimant. Her complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was therefore not well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 | Some disability discrimination complaints were dismissed on withdrawal: complaints 5.1.1 and 6.1.1 to 6.1.7. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found no contravention of section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 by direct disability discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, or discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found the respondent did not contravene section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 by victimising the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found the respondent did not contravene section 40 of the Equality Act 2010 by harassing the claimant. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the respondent did not dismiss the claimant, so the section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 complaint was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 39 Equality Act 2010
- section 40 Equality Act 2010
- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.