Case 1402404/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402404/2021
- Decision date
- 6 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail
- Venue
- Exeter
- Panel members
- Mrs V. Blake, Ms E. Smillie
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy consent, the tribunal recorded that Mrs W. Jackson was at all material times a disabled person, including because of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. It recorded that John Patt's Ltd unfairly dismissed her by counting disability-related absences in the scoring for a redundancy exercise.
The consent judgment also recorded disability discrimination under s.15 of the Equality Act 2010, on the basis that the circumstances of dismissal arose from her disability when she did not wear a mask because she had a medical exemption from doing so. It further recorded a failure to make a reasonable adjustment under s.20 of the Equality Act 2010, namely failing to allow her to work without a mask.
The respondent was ordered to pay £10,975.40 within 14 days. The judgment states that £10,000 of that sum was awarded by consent in respect of injury to feelings. It does not itemise the remaining balance beyond the overall figure.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | By consent; the redundancy scoring counted disability-related absences. | Settled | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | By consent; s.15 Equality Act 2010 claim concerning dismissal after the claimant did not wear a mask because of a medical exemption. | Settled | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | By consent; s.20 Equality Act 2010 claim concerning the alleged failure to allow the claimant to work without a mask as a reasonable adjustment. | Settled | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,975
- across all upheld claims
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.