Case 2207830/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Devlin (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2207830/2022
- Decision date
- 15 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Webster
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr R Baber, Ms Z Darmas
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Devlin (Counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the Claimant was disabled by severe hearing loss and that the Respondent knew of his disability. The reasonable adjustments claims were partly upheld, including in relation to the Respondent's handling of occupational health referral and consideration of adjustments, while other alleged adjustments or disadvantages were not upheld.
The disability-related harassment claims were also partly upheld. The Tribunal upheld allegations connected with failures to respond to requests, delay in occupational health referral, failure to review the Claimant's situation or discuss adjustments, and failure to follow relevant disability and reasonable adjustments guidance, but dismissed other harassment allegations including those concerning alleged false information, GDPR issues, workload allocation, replacement comments, a computer speaker, and risk assessment.
A separate remedy judgment awarded injury to feelings and aggravated damages, both inclusive of interest, with a total payable award of £26,215.67. The remedy judgment did not apportion the award between the reasonable adjustments and harassment claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 was partly upheld. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability under section 26 Equality Act 2010 was partly upheld. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £26,216
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 8 Equality Act 2010
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Tarbuck v Sainsbury's Supermarkets
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Pemberton v Inwood
- Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
- Newham Sixth Form College v Sanders
- Lamb v Business Academy Bexley
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.