Case 2202546/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Wicks v Transport for London — 2024
- Case reference
- 2202546/2023
- Decision date
- 5 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joffe
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms S Aslett, Mr P Madelin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Wicks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was well-founded and succeeded.
The tribunal also found that complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability were well-founded. The successful reasonable adjustment complaints concerned limiting the claimant's workplace to Heathrow on a Monday to Friday trial basis, offering alternative station-based CSA work at a station compatible with his medical restrictions, offering specified split-role combinations involving visitor centre and station-based CSA roles, and providing a phased return in the new role.
The tribunal found the claimant's unfair dismissal claim well-founded and upheld it. The judgment provided no remedy figures or separate monetary awards.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was found well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability were found well-founded and succeeded in relation to specified alternative role arrangements and phased return adjustments. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was found well-founded and upheld. | Upheld | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.