Case 2202540/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2024
- Case reference
- 2202540/2023
- Decision date
- 27 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anthony
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Dr J Holgate, Ms M Pilford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant's complaints of direct discrimination because of disability, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment related to disability, and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010.
The judgment provided is a short judgment recording the outcomes and does not set out factual findings or reasons for why the complaints failed. It also records that an anonymity and reporting restriction order remained in place requiring redactions of the claimant's name and identifying information in public records.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of direct discrimination because of disability under the Equality Act 2010 dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination arising from disability under the Equality Act 2010 dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment related to disability under the Equality Act 2010 dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Complaint of victimisation under the Equality Act 2010 dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.