Case 1401596/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Sutton v One Parking Solution Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401596/2022
- Decision date
- 31 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hena
- Panel members
- Ellis, Ley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Sutton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr A Sutton, brought a harassment claim related to disability under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 against One Parking Solution Limited. The tribunal sat at Bristol by CVP on 3 July 2023 before Employment Judge Hena with Tribunal Member Ellis and Tribunal Member Ley. It heard that during a meeting on 20 April 2022 the respondent said to the claimant words to the effect of: 'are you disabled because you are really slow?'.
The tribunal found that the remark was unwanted conduct and that it related to the claimant's protected characteristic of bipolar. It accepted that the comment did not have the purpose of violating the claimant's dignity or creating a hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, but found that it did have that effect, in that it intimidated and humiliated him in the meeting, and that this was not reasonable. Liability for harassment related to disability therefore succeeded.
Remedy was not determined at the liability hearing. The tribunal directed that remedy for injury to feelings would be considered on the papers, subject to a separate directions order and compliance by the parties.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal found that a remark made during a meeting on 20 April 2022, to the effect of 'are you disabled because you are really slow?', was unwanted conduct related to the claimant's protected characteristic of bipolar. It accepted that the comment did not have the purpose of violating dignity or creating a hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, but found that it had that effect and that this was not reasonable. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Equality Act 2010 s.26
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.