Case 1802428/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sleeman of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1802428/2018
- Decision date
- 11 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain
- Venue
- Sheffield
- Panel members
- Miss R Hodgkinson, Mr D Fields
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms Sleeman of Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an interim remedy hearing in Mr S Wadsworth v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, heard in Sheffield on 9 June 2020 before Employment Judge Brain with Miss R Hodgkinson and Mr D Fields. The tribunal recorded that the remedy hearing was adjourned part-heard and would resume on 4 September 2020 for one day. No final liability determination or monetary award was made in this decision.
The tribunal recommended that, by mutual agreement, the claimant’s notice period be extended from 10 June 2020 to 30 September 2020. It also recommended that the parties use reasonable endeavours and that the respondent comply with its duties under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 so that the claimant could take up the Assistant Education Health and Care Planning Coordinator role, including compliance with section 20(11) by recruiting and providing a support worker as an auxiliary aid. The tribunal further recommended reasonable assistance for redeployment during the extended notice period, and it ordered disclosure and reply evidence concerning the claimant’s MASH post, its deletion, and the redundancy and redeployment procedures followed after that deletion.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This interim remedy judgment and orders did not adjudicate a substantive claim outcome; it adjourned the remedy hearing part-heard and gave case-management directions only. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 20(11) Equality Act 2010
- s.7(4) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
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.