Case 1305570/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H O’Connell v Coventry Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre — 2025
- Case reference
- 1305570/2024
- Decision date
- 10 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Ms S Campbell, Ms M Stewart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms H O’Connell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously held that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to section 94 Employment Rights Act was well founded. It stated that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and that no Polkey reductions were appropriate.
The Tribunal also held that the complaint of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was well founded and succeeded. The complaints of direct sex discrimination, direct age discrimination, and failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments were not well founded and were dismissed.
The judgment records liability only. Remedy was left to be decided at a further hearing if required, and written reasons were not provided because reasons had been given orally unless a party requested written reasons.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to section 94 Employment Rights Act was well founded. Remedy was deferred to a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was well founded. Remedy was deferred to a further hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The complaint of direct sex discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | The complaint of direct age discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 94 Employment Rights Act
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- sections 13, 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- Polkey
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.