Case 2302433/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mary Kuye v Medway Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302433/2022
- Decision date
- 7 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Clarke Members
- Venue
- London South Tribunal
- Panel members
- Miss H Bharadia, Mr S Goodden
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mary Kuye
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Mary Kuye, was employed as a newly qualified social worker at Medway Council from 12 October 2020 until her dismissal by letter dated 22 August 2022. She brought two claims covering race and disability discrimination, harassment, victimisation, failure to make reasonable adjustments, holiday pay, and unauthorised deductions from wages. An earlier unfair dismissal claim had been dismissed at a 2023 case management hearing on jurisdictional grounds because she did not have two years' continuous service. The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant was a disabled person under s.6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of dyslexia (from the commencement of her employment), irritable bowel syndrome (from May 2022) and depression (from November 2021).
The Tribunal heard the case over five days in November 2025 and made numerous adjustments during the hearing for the Claimant's disabilities. On the merits, the Tribunal concluded that none of the Claimant's claims were well-founded. It found no evidence of a causative link between protected acts and the matters complained of, no breach of contract in relation to holiday pay, and that the Claimant had in fact been overpaid for her outstanding holiday entitlement on termination. The Claimant effectively withdrew her unauthorised deductions from wages claim in final submissions, which the Tribunal recorded as dismissed on withdrawal.
The Tribunal also addressed time limits, noting that the reasonable adjustments claim and parts of the discrimination case fell outside the primary limitation period and that no basis had been provided on which time could be extended on a just and equitable basis. As no claim succeeded, no remedy hearing was held and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found Claimant had been overpaid for outstanding holiday entitlement at termination; Respondent did not seek to recover the overpayment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found the Respondent was not in breach of contract and had not failed to pay the Claimant for holiday accrued but not taken on the date employment ended. Closely tied to the holiday pay complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claimant effectively withdrew this claim in final submissions; tribunal recorded it as dismissed on withdrawal. Tribunal noted that, had it not been withdrawn, it would have been dismissed on the merits. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination complaint; tribunal accepted Claimant was disabled (dyslexia, IBS from May 2022, depression from November 2021) but found the complaint not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaint; not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability (s.15 EqA 2010); not well-founded. |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 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.