Case 1306383/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms V Loughlin v DPD Group UK Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1306383/2024
- Decision date
- 16 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
- Venue
- Midlands West
- Panel members
- Mrs C Chaudhuri, Mr J Reeves
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms V Loughlin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms Loughlin was disabled at the relevant times by reason of the menopause symptom of hot flushes and sweats. It also found that DPD Group UK Limited did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that she was disabled at the relevant times.
The tribunal found that the Respondent applied a number of provisions, criteria or practices which were discriminatory in relation to sex, including the mobility clause, the way regions were determined, depot attendance requirements, overnight stays or commuting outside daytime business hours, and restructures without reasonable or adequate notice or consultation. It found that those PCPs were not discriminatory in relation to age or disability, and that the reasonable adjustments complaint was not made out because of the knowledge finding.
The Claimant was dismissed with effect from 24 June 2024. The Respondent did not contend that the dismissal was fair, and the tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded. Remedy for indirect sex discrimination and unfair dismissal was left to a separate hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the Claimant was disabled at the relevant times, but the Respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that she was disabled. The PCPs were not discriminatory in relation to disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found that specified PCPs applied by the Respondent were discriminatory in relation to sex, in breach of section 39 of the Equality Act 2010. Remedy was reserved to a separate hearing. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found that the PCPs were not discriminatory in relation to age. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint was dismissed because the Respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the Claimant was disabled at the relevant times. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Respondent did not contend that the dismissal was fair. Remedy was reserved to a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 6 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 39 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.