Case 1802885/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Rimmer v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 1802885/2022
- Decision date
- 11 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Rimmer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Public Preliminary Hearing considered whether the respondent was an employment service provider under sections 55 and 56 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant, who is profoundly deaf and whose first language is British Sign Language, alleged discrimination connected with Jobcentre Plus appointments, including occasions where meetings could not take place or were ineffective because a British Sign Language interpreter was not provided.
The tribunal referred to the statutory provisions, letters stating that Jobcentre Plus was intended to help the claimant find a job and stay in work, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission Code of Practice. It was satisfied that the respondent was an employment service provider and that the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claims. The respondent did not dispute that position.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Public Preliminary Hearing judgment only decided that the respondent was an employment service provider and that the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the discrimination claims; liability and remedy were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- sections 55 and 56 Equality Act 2010
- section 2 Employment and Training Act 1973
- section 114 Equality Act 2010
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.