Case 1600434/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Harris v Maximus UK Services Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1600434/2024
- Decision date
- 10 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
- Venue
- Newport
- Panel members
- Mr Gwyer-Roberts, Mrs D Hebb
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Harris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard claims by Mr B Harris against Maximus UK Services Ltd at Newport on 8, 9 and 10 April 2025. The panel comprised Employment Judge S Moore with Mr Gwyer-Roberts and Mrs D Hebb.
The written judgment records that the complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, harassment related to disability, and direct disability discrimination were not well-founded and were dismissed. The respondent's application for costs was refused. The judgment states that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the complaint of harassment related to disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct disability discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.