Case 1400345/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mrs J Headford (Solicitor) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1400345/2019
- Decision date
- 9 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in the claimant’s complaint of disability discrimination by way of an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal was asked to decide whether the claimant was disabled by reason of depression at the relevant time, and if so whether the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known that she was disabled and at a substantial disadvantage. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a diagnosis of depressive disorder from 27 April 2018 and that her symptoms included low mood, sleep disturbance, poor concentration, anxiety and memory problems, with fit notes from 31 August 2018 through to 17 November 2018 referring to anxiety and depression.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary judgment only. The tribunal held the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the material times, so the reasonable adjustments complaint failed. It also gave an alternative finding that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant was at a substantial disadvantage. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 8 paragraph 20 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Morris
- Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council
- Tesco Stores Ltd v Tennant
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.