Case 2400424/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Marsden v Department of Work and Pensions — 2025
- Case reference
- 2400424/2022
- Decision date
- 9 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Marsden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims against the Department of Work and Pensions for failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation, and discrimination arising from disability under the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal dismissed each claim. It recorded that the reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20-21 Equality Act 2010, the victimisation claim under section 27, and the discrimination arising from disability claim under section 15 were not well founded and failed.
The written judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing. No written reasons are included in the supplied judgment, so the document does not set out the tribunal's detailed factual findings or reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records the claim as failure to make reasonable adjustments pursuant to s20-21 Equality Act 2010 and states it was not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records the claim as victimisation pursuant to s27 Equality Act 2010 and states it was not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records the claim as discrimination arising from disability pursuant to s15 Equality Act 2010 and states it was not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s20-21 Equality Act 2010
- s27 Equality Act 2010
- s15 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.