Case 1305891/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Napoleoni v Jaguar Land Rover Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1305891/2023
- Decision date
- 31 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Platt
- Venue
- In person at Midlands West
- Panel members
- Mrs J Malatesta, Mr P Wilkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Napoleoni
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the complaint of harassment related to disability. It found that, at the relevant times, the claimant was not a disabled person as defined by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal also dismissed the complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability. The judgment records each of those complaints as not well-founded.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was also found not well-founded and dismissed. No monetary award or remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability was dismissed; the tribunal stated the claimant was not a disabled person as defined by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 of the Equality Act 2010
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.