Case 2301915/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Jennifer Caswell v Maximus UK Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301915/2023
- Decision date
- 26 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Fowell
- Panel members
- Ms H Carter, Ms G Mitchell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Jennifer Caswell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed because of long-term sickness absence. At the final capability hearing she was assured that the respondent would obtain a further Occupational Health report before making a final decision, but that did not happen, so the dismissal was unfair. The Tribunal also found that a further report could not have affected the ultimate outcome.
Compensation was stated to be confined to a basic award of £2,284 and a compensatory award for loss of statutory rights because the claimant had exhausted her sick pay entitlement, with the extent of compensation to be assessed at a further hearing. The complaint that dismissal was discrimination arising from disability was upheld to the same extent, while other disability discrimination complaints about procedure, the victimisation claim, and the unlawful deduction from wages claim were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states dismissal was unfair, with compensation confined to a basic award of £2,284 and a compensatory award for loss of statutory rights, but says the extent of compensation will be assessed at a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint that dismissal was discrimination arising from disability was upheld to the same extent as the unfair dismissal finding. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Other complaints of disability discrimination relating to the procedure followed were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation claim arose at the appeal stage and concerned procedural matters. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claimant did not suffer an unlawful deduction from wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.