Case 1403951/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Parsons v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1403951/2018
- Decision date
- 29 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Oliver
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Dr C Hole, Ms J Cusack
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Parsons
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent admitted liability for discrimination arising from disability, indirect disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to the requirement to regularly attend work.
The tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments in relation to a requirement to use the provided toilet facilities and in relation to providing access to the claimant's locker containing her personal items inside the disabled toilet.
The respondent was ordered to pay compensation of £17,715.72, consisting of loss of earnings, injury to feelings, and interest. A separate costs order of £8,768 was also made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The respondent admitted liability for discrimination arising from disability, indirect disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to the requirement to regularly attend work. The tribunal also found failures to make reasonable adjustments concerning toilet facilities and access to the claimant's locker. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,716
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,319
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.