Case 1600232/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S. Rofe v Wrexham County Borough Council — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600232/2019
- Decision date
- 7 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Ms W.E. Morgan, Ms S.D. Atkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S. Rofe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal first dealt with the disability discrimination claim brought by Mrs S. Rofe against Wrexham County Borough Council. It found that the claim had been presented out of time, but it was just and equitable to extend time to the date of actual presentation. After that extension, the tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the direct discrimination allegation in relation to disability, by association, was not well-founded.
The tribunal also rejected the unfair dismissal claim. It held that Mrs Rofe was fairly dismissed on 1 November 2018 because her absence level from work was unacceptable, the impact on the provision of a statutory service was serious and unsustainable, and the respondent had no confidence that her attendance would improve. No monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the disability discrimination claim, brought by association, was presented out of time but extended time to the date of actual presentation on just and equitable grounds. The claim itself was then found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was fairly dismissed on 1 November 2018 because her absence level was unacceptable, had a serious adverse impact on the provision of a statutory service, and the respondent had no confidence that her attendance would improve. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.