Case 2301919/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Idowu Dahunsi v London Borough of Southwark — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301919/2024
- Decision date
- 17 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall
- Panel members
- Mr C Wilby, Mr Cann
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Idowu Dahunsi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant alleged that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments in relation to a workplace attendance requirement. Disability in relation to pulmonary sarcoidosis was conceded, and the tribunal considered alleged adjustments including working from Tooley Street, working from home more often, and attending meetings virtually.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with someone without her disability and that the respondent could not reasonably have been expected to know she was likely to be placed at the alleged disadvantage. It also found that the respondent was prepared to consider alternative workplaces and working arrangements, had allowed substantial home working, and had permitted virtual meeting attendance save for a small number of meetings.
The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed. The race discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the race discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Equality Act 2010 sections 20 and 21
- section 123 of the Equality Act 2010
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.