Case 1400866/2023 · Employment Tribunal
- MS S PANKOWSKI INTERPRETER (POLISH) MS A TEXEIRA -VAZ (8 / 9TH / 10TH / 11TH / 12TH APRIL) MS A SYTA (15TH /16TH APRIL ) FOR THE v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1400866/2023
- Decision date
- 2 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Dated
Parties
1 namedClaimant
- MS S PANKOWSKI INTERPRETER (POLISH) MS A TEXEIRA -VAZ (8 / 9TH / 10TH / 11TH / 12TH APRIL) MS A SYTA (15TH /16TH APRIL ) FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone at Bristol on 8 to 16 April 2024, dismissed the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, discriminatory dismissal under s39(2) Equality Act 2010, direct age and/or disability discrimination, harassment related to age and/or disability, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and unlawful deduction from wages. The judgment records that Employment Judge Cadney gave judgment on 16 April 2024.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Discriminatory dismissal (s39(2) Equality Act 2010). The extracted judgment does not specify the protected characteristic in the dispositive text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age and/or disability discrimination (s13 Equality Act 2010). | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to age and/or disability (s26 Equality Act 2010). | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability (s15 Equality Act 2010). | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments (s20 Equality Act 2010). | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.