Case 1402735/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Bott v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2020
- Case reference
- 1402735/2019
- Decision date
- 15 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Members
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mr J Evans, Mr D A Stewart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Bott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously held that the respondent did not fail to make reasonable adjustments to remove disadvantage to which the claimant was put by reason of her disability.
The tribunal also held that the claimant's harassment and direct discrimination claims were presented out of time, and that it was not just and equitable for those claims to proceed. No remedy award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the respondent did not fail to make reasonable adjustments to remove disadvantage by reason of the claimant's disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The harassment claim was presented out of time and the tribunal held it was not just and equitable for it to proceed. The text does not separately specify the protected characteristic for this claim, but the judgment listing and reasonable adjustments claim concern disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The direct discrimination claim was presented out of time and the tribunal held it was not just and equitable for it to proceed. The text does not separately specify the protected characteristic for this claim, but the judgment listing and reasonable adjustments claim concern disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonable adjustments
- just and equitable
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.