Case 2302036/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Sandhu v Department for Work and Pensions — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302036/2023
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Tribunal
- Panel members
- Tribunal Member Huggins, Tribunal Member Corkerton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Sandhu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was not disabled by reason of anxiety and depression at the relevant time. On that basis, she had no standing to bring the alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments claim, and that claim was dismissed.
The tribunal also found that the claimant's communication of 9 August 2022 and grievance of 30 August 2022 were not protected acts under s27(2)(d) Equality Act 2010. The alleged negative treatment complained of therefore could not form part of a victimisation claim, and that claim was dismissed. The judgment records that none of the claimant's claims survived the unanimous judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment describes this as an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments and dismisses it because the claimant was not disabled by reason of anxiety and depression at the relevant time and had no standing to bring the claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment found that the claimant's communication of 9 August 2022 and grievance of 30 August 2022 were not protected acts under s27(2)(d) Equality Act 2010, so the alleged negative treatment could not form part of a victimisation claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s27(2)(d) 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.