Case 2401672/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Ceriaco v Hazelwell Care Home Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401672/2022
- Decision date
- 31 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
- Venue
- By CVP
- Panel members
- Mr R Cunningham, Mr Q Colborn
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Ceriaco
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Ms M Ceriaco’s complaint that she was dismissed on or about 4 March 2022 was well-founded as a complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. It dismissed the remaining section 15 complaints.
The tribunal also upheld the reasonable-adjustments complaints under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010, but only to the extent identified in the judgment. It found that from 7 November 2021 Hazelwell Care Home Ltd should have allowed the claimant to work reduced hours of 30 hours per week and should have provided reduced hours of work.
The remaining reasonable-adjustments complaints were dismissed. The written judgment does not record any monetary remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The complaint that the claimant was dismissed on or about 4 March 2022 was well-founded under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The remaining section 15 complaints were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The reasonable-adjustments complaints were well-founded under sections 20/21 Equality Act 2010 to the extent that, from 7 November 2021, the respondent should have allowed the claimant to work reduced hours of 30 hours per week and should have provided reduced hours of work. The remaining reasonable-adjustments complaints were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20/21 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.