Case 2217071/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Samantha Thompson Brown v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis — 2025
- Case reference
- 2217071/2023
- Decision date
- 22 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr P Lewis, Mr P Madelin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Samantha Thompson Brown
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's claims for unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 were well founded and succeeded.
The tribunal found that the claimant's claims for disability related harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 were not well founded and dismissed them. It awarded the claimant GBP 8,000 for injury to feelings and GBP 969.64 interest on that award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim for unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was found well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | Disability | £8,000 |
| Harassment | Claim for disability related harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,970
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 15 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 26 of the Equality Act 2010
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.