Case 2200665/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Gloria Azcarate v City & Essex Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2200665/2025
- Decision date
- 2 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Gloria Azcarate
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary issue hearing before Employment Judge A.M.S. Green at London Central by CVP on 24 November 2025. The respondent was City & Essex Ltd and the claimant was Ms Gloria Azcarate. The tribunal considered whether the claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found that, at the relevant times, the claimant was not a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of chronic bronchitis. On that basis, the claims of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue: the tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of chronic bronchitis. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue: the tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of chronic bronchitis, so the reasonable adjustments claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 Equality Act 2010
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.