Case 1807407/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1807407/2020
- Decision date
- 3 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mr M Taj, Mrs L Anderson-Coe
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claim of failure to meet the duty to make reasonable adjustments succeeded only in relation to particular workplace practices: working until 5pm, targets for the number of calls answered, completing administrative tasks, comfort break targets, and the immediate implementation of policy changes. The judgment states that all other reasonable-adjustments claims failed.
The tribunal also dismissed the claims of harassment related to disability. It awarded the claimant compensation of £14,000 and interest of £1,120 under the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996, producing a total award of £15,120.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claim succeeded only in relation to the duty to make reasonable adjustments for the practices of working until 5pm, meeting targets for number of calls answered, completing administrative tasks, comfort break targets, and immediate implementation of policy changes. All other adjustment complaints failed. | Upheld | Disability | £14,000 |
| Harassment | The claims of harassment related to disability failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,120
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £14,000
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.