Case 2211468/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2211468/2022
- Decision date
- 30 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout Tribunal
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- J Marshall, S Pearlman
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at London Central before Employment Judge Stout with tribunal members J Marshall and S Pearlman, heard the case on 29 and 30 June 2023. Its unanimous judgment was that the Respondent did not contravene s.15 and s.39(2)(c) of the Equality Act 2010 by discriminating against the Claimant because of something arising in consequence of her disability.
The tribunal also found that the Respondent did not contravene ss.20, 21 and 39(5) of the Equality Act 2010 by failing to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments for the Claimant's disability. On those findings, the whole of the Claimant's claim was dismissed.
The reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written extract records no separate remedy award. No monetary compensation was made, and no breakdown of damages or interest was recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that the Respondent did not contravene s.15 and s.39(2)(c) Equality Act 2010 by discriminating against the Claimant because of something arising in consequence of her disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that the Respondent did not contravene ss.20, 21 and 39(5) Equality Act 2010 by failing to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments for the Claimant's disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.