Case 2200247/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Ferreira, husband For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2200247/2023
- Decision date
- 19 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grewal
- Panel members
- Ms D Warman, Mr D Shaw
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr P Ferreira, husband For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, employed as a band 5 service support manager, brought disability discrimination complaints concerning the respondent's requirement that she work 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. over five days rather than compressed hours over four days. The respondent conceded disability by reference to anxiety, but disputed knowledge and liability.
The tribunal found that by 7 December 2022 the respondent knew the claimant was placed at a substantial disadvantage by working 9-to-5 over five days. It concluded that compressed hours were a reasonable adjustment and that the respondent was in breach of its duty to make reasonable adjustments from 7 December 2022 until 25 January 2023.
For the same period, the tribunal also found indirect disability discrimination. It accepted that efficient administration of the palliative care department during service hours was a legitimate aim, but held that removing the compressed working pattern was not proportionate because the respondent had been able to accommodate that pattern. No financial loss was conceded, and remedy was left to a later hearing for injury to feelings.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded in part for the period from 7 December 2022 until 25 January 2023. Remedy was reserved for a later hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination succeeded for the same period on the PCP requiring 9-to-5 work over five days. Remedy was reserved for a later hearing. | 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.