Case 2209506/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Y Whittaker-Khan v Capital City College Group — 2025
- Case reference
- 2209506/2023
- Decision date
- 15 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead
- Panel members
- Mr P Madelin, Ms Z Darmas
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Y Whittaker-Khan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments. It found no substance in the complaint, including in relation to the route taken by the Respondent up to the Stage 3 meeting, and said it would not have been reasonable for the Respondent to have to take any step other than dismissal at that point.
On discrimination arising from disability, the Tribunal accepted that dismissal and rejection of the appeal were unfavourable treatment and that the dismissal was because of long sickness absence arising from disability. It found, however, that the Respondent had shown the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims relating to attendance and the efficient operation of student services.
On victimisation, the Tribunal accepted that three communications amounted to protected acts and treated the dismissal and appeal outcome as detriments. It found that the dismissal decision-maker was not aware of any protected act and that there was no basis to infer victimisation in either the dismissal or appeal decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The indirect disability discrimination claim was withdrawn during the trial. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Equality Act 2010 s20
- Equality Act 2010 s21(2)
- Tarbuck v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Equality Act 2010 s15
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Equality Act 2010 s27(2)(d)
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.