Case 2300454/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person but assisted by her husband. For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300454/2018
- Decision date
- 14 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mr S Goodden, Ms C Bonner
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person but assisted by her husband. For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously held that the claim of direct disability discrimination was well founded and succeeded. It also held that the claim of unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of disability was well founded and succeeded. The judgment record does not set out the tribunal's factual reasons in writing, because it states that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
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 | Direct disability discrimination. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of disability. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Disability-related harassment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Sex-related harassment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.