Case 2205981/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr J Cox, Union Representative For the v Respondent — 2018

Case reference: 2205981/2018
Decision date: 8 March 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Russell Members
Venue: London Central
Panel members: Ms S Pendle, Mr D Carter

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr J Cox, Union Representative For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Mrs Seale, was dismissed on 27 July 2018 for medical inefficiency after a long period in which the Home Office tried to move her into another role under its workplace reasonable adjustment move (RAM) policy. The tribunal accepted that she was disabled for Equality Act purposes and that her dyslexia and dyspraxia affected her ability to work in the presenting officer role, which she had taken in June 2016 after moving from the asylum team.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that dismissal for medical inefficiency was a fair dismissal for capability under s.98 ERA 1996 and s.98(4) ERA 1996.	Dismissed	—	—
Disability discrimination	This covered the claimant's disability discrimination complaints, including alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the reasonable adjustments duty was met, accepted that s.15 was engaged, but held the dismissal was justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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.