Case 2201474/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2201474/2021
- Decision date
- 26 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty
- Panel members
- Mrs C Brayson, Ms J Marshall
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 18-26 April 2023 before Employment Judge Baty, Mrs C Brayson and Ms J Marshall, the tribunal dealt with the claimant's complaints against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis arising from promotion processes in 2020 and 2021. The claim of unfair constructive dismissal (2204603/2022) was struck out because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it.
The complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments and indirect disability discrimination concerning the 2020 promotion process were presented out of time. The tribunal was not satisfied that it was just and equitable to extend time, so those complaints were struck out for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal recorded that, if it had had jurisdiction to hear them, they would have failed.
The remaining disability complaints concerning the 2021 promotion process were determined on the merits. The tribunal found that the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments failed, as did the complaints of victimisation and direct disability discrimination. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Complaint of unfair constructive dismissal (2204603/2022); struck out because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments relating to the 2020 promotion process; presented out of time, the tribunal was not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time, and the claim was struck out. The tribunal said it would have failed if heard. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination relating to the 2020 promotion process; presented out of time, the tribunal was not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time, and the claim was struck out. The tribunal said it would have failed if heard. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments relating to the 2021 promotion process; the claim failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation claim relating to the 2021 promotion process; the claim failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend time
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.