Case 1800410/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 1800410/2024
- Decision date
- 13 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller
- Venue
- Hull
- Panel members
- Ms Y Fisher, Mr M Brewer
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a facilities manager by the respondent, an academy chain, and was disabled by reason of epilepsy at the relevant times. She brought claims for unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and for unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, relying on dismissal and the failure to uphold her appeal.
The tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to regard the claimant's conduct involving a knife left stabbed into a whiteboard as gross misconduct. It found that the investigation was reasonable overall, that mitigation and alternatives to dismissal were considered, and that the decision to dismiss was within the band of reasonable responses.
The tribunal concluded that the dismissal was not discriminatory and that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well founded. Both the unfair dismissal complaint and the disability discrimination complaint were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was not well founded and was dismissed. The supplied PDF text is truncated in the middle. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s 15 Equality Act 2010
- band of reasonable responses
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.