Case 1811127/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Rowley v Department for Work and Pensions — 2019
- Case reference
- 1811127/2018
- Decision date
- 29 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buckley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Rowley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that Ms S Rowley brought claims against the Department for Work and Pensions including automatic unfair dismissal and detriment relating to protected disclosure, direct and indirect disability discrimination, and harassment because of disability.
Employment Judge Buckley dismissed those claims following their withdrawal by the claimant. The judgment does not record findings on the merits or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment describes this as a claim of automatic unfair dismissal (protected disclosure), dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes this as a detriment (protected disclosure) claim, dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim, dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination claim, dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment because of disability claim, dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.