Case 1305230/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1305230/2020
- Decision date
- 25 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr R Virdee, Mr N Howard
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, holding that the respondent's capability dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses open to it. The tribunal also dismissed both disability discrimination claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed; the tribunal held the dismissal on grounds of capability was within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim advanced as discrimination arising from disability; the tribunal found the absences leading to dismissal did not arise from the claimant's known disabilities and that dismissal was proportionate in any event. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim advanced as failure to make reasonable adjustments; the tribunal found there was no PCP of not extending timescales under the absence policies and, in any event, timescales had been significantly extended more than reasonably. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- band of reasonable responses
- proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aim
- PCP
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.