Case 1405553/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Sutherland v Barclays Bank UK plc — 2021
- Case reference
- 1405553/2019
- Decision date
- 20 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris Members
- Panel members
- Mrs R Bell, Mrs J Maughan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Sutherland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant's complaint that her dismissal by Barclays Bank UK Plc was unfair contrary to sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, finding it was not well-founded.
The Tribunal also dismissed the claimant's Equality Act 2010 complaints. It found that the complaints of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were each not well-founded.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by a party within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the complaint that dismissal was unfair, contrary to sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under sections 39 and 13 of the Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under sections 39 and 15 of the Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 39 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 13 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 15 of the Equality Act 2010
- sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010
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.