Case 1402616/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Rashleigh v Worthing Women’s Aid T/A Safe In Sussex — 2020
- Case reference
- 1402616/2019
- Decision date
- 29 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Rashleigh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remote audio preliminary hearing on 29 May 2020 before Employment Judge Rayner, listed to determine whether Mrs E Rashleigh was disabled by reason of depression and whether Worthing Women’s Aid T/A Safe In Sussex had actual or constructive knowledge of that disability. The hearing was held remotely by consent after the originally listed in-person hearing had been postponed in accordance with presidential directions.
The tribunal found that the Claimant was a disabled person by reason of depression from February 2017 until the termination of her employment on 30 January 2019. It also found that the Respondent had constructive knowledge of the Claimant’s disability during those material times.
No final merits decision on the underlying discrimination complaints appears in this judgment, and no remedy was awarded. The judgment is confined to the preliminary disability and knowledge issues.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal found that the Claimant was a disabled person by reason of depression from February 2017 until termination of employment on 30 January 2019, and that the Respondent had constructive knowledge of that disability during those material times. No substantive liability or remedy was determined in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
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.