Case 2300413/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Emmanuel (a friend) For the v Respondent — 2024

Case reference: 2300413/2023
Decision date: 15 August 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Tueje MEMBERS
Panel members: Mr K Murphy, Ms E Whitlam

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr Emmanuel (a friend) For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal unanimously held that the claimant's section 15 Equality Act 2010 complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability were well-founded in two respects: the decision on 20 July 2022 to permanently withdraw the claimant from the apprenticeship, and the email sent by the Head of Service on 27 September 2022. The remaining section 15 complaints were dismissed.

Claims and outcomes

3 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	Section 15 Equality Act 2010 complaint succeeded in respect of the decision on 20 July 2022 to permanently withdraw the claimant from the apprenticeship and the email sent by the Head of Service on 27 September 2022. The remaining section 15 complaints were dismissed.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Complaints under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability were not well-founded and were dismissed.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Harassment	The complaint of harassment related to disability under section 26 Equality Act 2010 succeeded in respect of the email sent to the claimant on 27 September 2022. The remaining harassment complaints were dismissed.	Upheld	Disability	—

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.