Case 2214934/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms S Heimann v Ministry of Defence — 2024

Case reference: 2214934/2023
Decision date: 26 September 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Nash
Panel members: Ms S Aslett, Mr A Adolphus

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms S Heimann

Respondent

Ministry of Defence

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal held that the respondent failed to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments under ss20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 in relation to failing to comply with procedures on or around 13 October 2023. It rejected the remaining reasonable-adjustments complaints.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

This 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	The tribunal found a failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments under ss20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 by failing to comply with procedures on or around 13 October 2023.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The tribunal did not find a failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments under ss20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 in any other claim.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The tribunal found discrimination contrary to s15 Equality Act 2010 because the respondent required the claimant to return to work at short notice in August 2023.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The tribunal did not find discrimination contrary to s15 Equality Act 2010 in any other claim.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Victimisation	The tribunal did not find victimisation contrary to s27 Equality Act 2010.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 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.

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.