Case 1800167/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Woodhouse v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800167/2020
- Decision date
- 23 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms V Woodhouse was at all material times from February to October 2019 a disabled person. The judgment records that this was by reason of joint and back pain and fatigue arising from Ehlers Danlos Syndrome, together with short-term memory loss and temporary disruption of cognitive function arising from a combination of Ehlers Danlos Syndrome and Mild Cognitive Impairment.
The written record is limited to that finding and a note that reasons were given orally at the hearing. It also states that written reasons would not be provided unless a request was made within 14 days. No compensation or other monetary remedy is recorded in the supplied judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found the claimant was a disabled person at all material times from February to October 2019. The supplied judgment records no liability finding on the substantive allegations and no remedy. | Upheld | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.