Case 2200447/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2200447/2022
- Decision date
- 23 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Professor
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr L Parker, brought claims against West Midlands Trains Limited by reference to the protected characteristic of disability. The written judgment states that the claims included direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure by the respondent to make reasonable adjustments.
All three disability discrimination claims were dismissed by Employment Judge Professor A C Neal at the hearing in London Central on 23 August 2022. The written record does not set out separate findings on each allegation beyond the dismissal of the claims.
The judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary remedy was awarded in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim by reference to disability alleging direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments; all dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim by reference to disability alleging direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments; all dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim by reference to disability alleging direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments; all dismissed. | Dismissed | 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.