Case 1406377/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Representing herself For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1406377/2019
- Decision date
- 1 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson
- Panel members
- Mr Spry-Shute, Mr Shah MBE
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Representing herself For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the first respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant by rostering her to work over her break times on four occasions. It also found that the fourth respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by rostering her to work over her break times on two occasions. Those were the only claims that succeeded.
All other claims brought by the claimant were dismissed. The judgment does not set out any separate award against the fourth respondent because, at the claimant's request, no compensation was awarded against that respondent.
The first respondent was ordered to pay £2,500 in compensation for injury to feelings, together with £300.82 interest. The judgment records no basic award or compensatory award separate from the injury to feelings figure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that the first respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant by rostering her to work over her break times on four occasions, and that the fourth respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by rostering her to work over her break times on two occasions. All other claims were dismissed. The first respondent was ordered to pay £2,500 in respect of injury to feelings and interest was ordered separately; at the claimant's request no compensation was awarded against the fourth respondent. | Upheld | Disability | £2,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,801
- 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.