Case 2301463/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Neale v Mitie Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301463/2023
- Decision date
- 23 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
- Panel members
- Ms B Leverton, Mr A Peart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Neale
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, who remained employed by the respondent, brought a claim for discrimination arising from disability. The issue concerned whether the respondent treated him unfavourably by locking him out of work and not providing suitable alternative work after an event during a meeting on 2 December 2022. The respondent conceded disability and accepted that pausing or suspending the phased return to work and withdrawing him from the reaccreditation process was unfavourable treatment.
The Tribunal found that fatigue arising from the claimant's disabilities contributed to the event on 2 December 2022, but that the respondent did not lock him out of work. It found the respondent was justified in relying on the legitimate aim of health and safety, that the steps taken were proportionate and reasonable, and that the respondent had attempted to provide suitable alternative work. The claim was not well founded and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claim was for discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The judgment states the claim was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Equality Act 2010 section 15
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd
- City of York Council v Grosset
- Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey
- Pilkington UK Limited v Jones
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.