Case 2200224/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Brown, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2200224/2024
- Decision date
- 30 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr W Brown, Solicitor For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a consent liability judgment heard at Central London before Employment Judge Brown sitting alone. The parties were represented by Mr W Brown for the Claimant and Mr J Hurd for the Respondent. The judgment records that, by consent, the Tribunal determined liability only and made no award of remedy in the document provided.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent failed to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments because it did not allow the Claimant to work from home on 7 November 2022, 28 February 2023, a date in June 2023, and 19 September 2023. It also found that the Respondent subjected the Claimant to discrimination arising from disability when it gave her an unsatisfactory attendance warning (stage 1) on 18 January 2023 and a final written warning in relation to attendance on 9 October 2023.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | By consent, the Tribunal found that the Respondent failed to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments because it did not allow the Claimant to work from home on 7 November 2022, 28 February 2023, a date in June 2023, and 19 September 2023. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | By consent, the Tribunal found that the Respondent subjected the Claimant to discrimination arising from disability by giving her an unsatisfactory attendance warning (stage 1) on 18 January 2023 and a final written warning in relation to attendance on 9 October 2023. | Upheld | 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.
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.