Case 1304229/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr. E Rogers v Hereford & Worcester Fire Authority — 2023

Case reference: 1304229/2023
Decision date: 25 April 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge MANLEY

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr. E Rogers

Respondent

Hereford & Worcester Fire Authority

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal heard a preliminary issue on whether Mr E Rogers was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 because of ADHD. The hearing took place remotely by CVP on 5 July 2024 and 16 July 2024 before Employment Judge Manley, with the claimant in person and assisted by Mr Marsh, litigation friend, and the respondent represented by counsel.

The tribunal held that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the material time. The disability finding covered the period from 25 January 2022 to 25 April 2023, which was identified as the date of the last discriminatory act complained of.

Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal’s usual procedure. No monetary remedy was recorded in this decision because the judgment determined only the preliminary disability issue.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time, from 25 January 2022 to 25 April 2023, by reason of ADHD.	Upheld	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 .

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.