Case 2216332/2023 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216332/2023
- Decision date
- 20 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov Tribunal
- Panel members
- D Kendall, Dr V Weerasinghe
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of direct disability discrimination, direct race discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment related to race, and victimisation. At the start of the hearing she withdrew several direct disability discrimination allegations, which were dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal dealt with liability only, with remedy to be determined separately if required.
The tribunal found that the respondent had accepted the claimant was disabled by reason of depression and anxiety. The upheld complaint concerned the respondent reducing the claimant's pay while she was suspended and off sick, after the suspension letter had promised normal pay. The tribunal found the respondent had not shown that the unfavourable treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
All other complaints in the claim were found not well-founded and dismissed. No remedy figures were determined in the liability judgment.
Claims and outcomes
6 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 | The complaint of discrimination arising from disability was found well-founded. Compensation was to be determined at a remedy hearing if not agreed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant withdrew specified allegations of direct disability discrimination at the start of the hearing, and that part of the claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The remaining disability discrimination complaints, including direct disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments, were not well-founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The direct race discrimination complaint was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The harassment related to race complaint was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation complaint was not well-founded and was dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- ss.20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- O'Hanlon
- Seldon v Clarkson & Jakes
- Buchanan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
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.