Case 1305151/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Flanagan v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police — 2022
- Case reference
- 1305151/2020
- Decision date
- 14 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Jones
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs N Chavda, Mrs R Pelter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Flanagan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Birmingham, chaired by Employment Judge J Jones with Mrs N Chavda and Mrs R Pelter, heard Ms L Flanagan's claim against the Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police over numerous hearing days in February to April 2022. The judgment records that the claim of unfair dismissal succeeded.
The same judgment records that the claims of direct disability discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment and victimisation failed and were dismissed. No separate remedy award is recorded in the extracted text, and no monetary figures are stated in the judgment extract provided.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.