Case 1306934/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Rothwell v Rowley Care Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1306934/2020
- Decision date
- 30 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hindmarch Members
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs Ahmad, Mr Deneen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Rothwell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs S Rothwell brought claims against Rowley Care Limited (in voluntary liquidation) before Employment Judge Hindmarch sitting with members Mrs Ahmad and Mr Deneen. The respondent did not attend and the hearing was conducted by CVP on 30 January 2023. The judgment records two disability discrimination claims: a claim of discrimination arising from disability under s15 Equality Act 2010 and a claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments under s20 Equality Act 2010.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim under s15 Equality Act 2010 (discrimination arising from disability) was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under s20 Equality Act 2010 (failure to make reasonable adjustments) was found well founded and upheld. The award recorded was £8,500 for injury to feelings plus £2,174 interest, totalling £10,674. | Upheld | Disability | £10,674 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,674
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s15 Equality Act 2010
- s20 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.