Case 1801047/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Keenan v Workers Educational Association (WEA) Heard: Remote Hearing by Telephone — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801047/2020
- Decision date
- 17 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Keenan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing on 17 July 2020 was a remote preliminary issue hearing by telephone before Employment Judge JM Wade. The claimant, Mr M Keenan, appeared in person and the respondent, Workers Educational Association (WEA), was represented by counsel Mr J Jenkins. The tribunal recorded that the hearing proceeded by telephone because an in-person hearing was not possible and the claimant was unable to take part in a video hearing.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's Equality Act complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments and discriminatory dismissal. The reason given was that the tribunal concluded the claimant was not a disabled person at the material time, identified as January to December 2019. No remedy was awarded because the complaints were dismissed.
The judgment states that the hearing was adjourned to 13 August 2020, indicating that further matters remained to be dealt with after determination of this preliminary issue.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments dismissed because the Tribunal concluded the claimant was not a disabled person at the material time (January to December 2019). | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discriminatory dismissal dismissed for the same reason: the Tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person at the material time (January to December 2019). | 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.