Case 2302968/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302968/2019
- Decision date
- 14 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mr R Shaw, Ms G Mitchell
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously upheld the claim that the respondent failed to make a reasonable adjustment by providing the claimant with an orthopaedic chair. That was the only disability claim to succeed.
The tribunal dismissed the remaining failure to make reasonable adjustment claims. It also dismissed the claims of victimisation and the claims of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded the claimant £1,500 for injury to feelings on the successful reasonable adjustment claim, together with £515.84 interest. No separate basic award or compensatory award is recorded in the judgment extract.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make a reasonable adjustment by providing the claimant with an orthopaedic chair. | Upheld | Disability | £1,500 |
| Disability discrimination | The remaining failure to make reasonable adjustment claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,016
- across all upheld claims
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.