Case 1601624/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601624/2018
- Decision date
- 12 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Date
- Panel members
- Ms Southall, Mr Davies
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Cardiff on 4, 5, 6 and 7 February 2020, heard Mr L Reynolds' claims against Bridgend County Borough Council. The tribunal was constituted by Employment Judge NW Beard with members Ms Southall and Mr Davies, and its unanimous judgment was sent to the parties on 12 February 2020.
The claim of unfair dismissal under sections 95(1)(c) and 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed as not well founded. The tribunal also held that the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, so the disability discrimination claims were not well founded and were dismissed.
The remaining Equality Act claims were also dismissed. The tribunal rejected the claim of race discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 and the victimisation claim under section 27 of that Act, finding each was not well founded. No monetary remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claim was not well founded under sections 95(1)(c) and 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, and therefore the disability discrimination claims were not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The claim of discrimination because of race under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation claim under section 27 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- sections 95(1)(c) and 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 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.