Case 1801643/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 1801643/2024
- Decision date
- 13 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge James
- Panel members
- Mr D Eales, Mr Q Shah
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs S Khan, was an agency worker placed by the respondent (Reed Talent Solutions Limited) with Leeds City Council. She has several conditions accepted as disabilities under the Equality Act 2010, including cervical radiculopathy, osteoarthritis, sciatica and dyslexia with Irlen's syndrome. The proceedings concerned an alleged failure by the respondent to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20, 21 and 41(4) of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to equipment, software and training recommended in an Access to Work (ATW) assessment in December 2022.
The Tribunal, sitting at Leeds over four days in January 2025, heard evidence from the claimant and from three witnesses for the respondent. It upheld the reasonable adjustments claim in relation to seven auxiliary aids/services: Grammarly Premium; Dragon Professional Individual v15 with compatible headphones; a Varidesk Pro Plus 36; Workplace Coping Strategy Training; a wireless Roller Mouse; a Gold Touch ergonomic keyboard; and an Adapt 630 Ergonomic Chair with appropriate back rest, neck roller and arm rests. The Tribunal dismissed the claim in relation to two further items: Read Write software and an Irlens Syndrome/Colourimetry Assessment.
The hearing dealt with liability only. The sole remedy issue addressed at this stage was whether the failure to make reasonable adjustments resulted in the claimant ending her agency worker relationship with Reed and becoming employed directly by Leeds City Council; any monetary remedy was not determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments (ss.20, 21 and s.41(4) Equality Act 2010) upheld in relation to seven auxiliary aids/services: Grammarly Premium; Dragon Professional Individual v15 with compatible headphones; Varidesk Pro Plus 36; Workplace Coping Strategy Training; Roller Mouse wireless; Gold Touch ergonomic keyboard; Adapt 630 Ergonomic Chair with appropriate back rest, neck roller and arm rests. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments not upheld and dismissed in relation to Read Write software and an Irlens Syndrome/Colourimetry Assessment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Equality Act 2010 ss.20 and 21
- Equality Act 2010 s.41(4)
- Equality Act 2010 s.123
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.