Case 1304526/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Sanders v Department for Education — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304526/2023
- Decision date
- 27 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr S Woodall, Mr J Kelly
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Sanders
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, who remained employed by the respondent, brought complaints concerning disability discrimination, harassment, victimisation and the handling of a flexible working request. The tribunal recorded that he was disabled by reason of depression, anxiety, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and social anxiety.
The tribunal dismissed the complaints of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, harassment related to disability and victimisation. It also dismissed the reasonable adjustments complaint because it was not brought within the required time limits, did not form part of conduct extending over a period, and it was not just and equitable to extend time, while noting that part of that complaint would have succeeded if it had been in time.
The tribunal upheld the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with section 80G of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in relation to a flexible working request. It directed the parties to try to agree compensation by 17 January 2025, with a remedy hearing to be listed if they could not agree.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The reasonable adjustments complaint was dismissed as out of time, although the tribunal stated that part of it would have succeeded had it been presented within the applicable time limit. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Flexible working | The complaint of failure to comply with section 80G of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in relation to a flexible working request was well-founded. Compensation was left for agreement or a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 80G Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123(4) Equality Act 2010
- Z v Y 2024 EAT 63
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.