Case 2218560/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dr D Lavin v University College London and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2218560/2024
- Decision date
- 15 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smart
- Panel members
- Mr P Alleyne, Mr D Shaw
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Dr D Lavin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Dr D Lavin was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of depression and anxiety from late 2009 onwards. It found that University College London had knowledge of that disability from 22 May 2019, and that Professor Timothy Button had knowledge from 21 June 2021.
The discrimination arising in consequence of disability claims under sections 15 and 39 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. The disability-related harassment claims under sections 26 and 40 Equality Act 2010 were also dismissed.
The tribunal upheld the failure to make reasonable adjustments claims under sections 20, 21 and 39 Equality Act 2010 in relation to paragraphs 6.7.5 and 6.7.6 of the list of issues. Time for presenting those claims was extended because it was just and equitable to do so. All other reasonable adjustment claims failed. The tribunal declared that the First Respondent discriminated against the Claimant by failing to make reasonable adjustments on two occasions.
The constructive unfair dismissal claim under sections 95(1)(c) and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed. All claims against the Second Respondent failed and were dismissed. The parties were given 28 days, until 31 October 2025, to attempt to settle remedy for the two successful reasonable adjustment claims; if not settled, the matter was to be listed for a remedy hearing.
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 | The Claimant’s claims of discrimination arising in consequence of disability under sections 15 and 39 Equality Act 2010 were found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Claimant’s claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20, 21 and 39 Equality Act 2010, at paragraphs 6.7.5 and 6.7.6 of the list of issues, succeeded. The tribunal extended time for presentation because it was just and equitable to do so. All other reasonable adjustment claims were dismissed, and the tribunal declared that the First Respondent discriminated by failing to make reasonable adjustments on two occasions. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The Claimant’s disability-related harassment claims under sections 26 and 40 Equality Act 2010 were not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The Claimant’s constructive unfair dismissal claim under sections 95(1)(c) and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- sections 15 and 39 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20, 21 and 39 Equality Act 2010
- sections 26 and 40 Equality Act 2010
- sections 95(1)(c) and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- just and equitable
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.