Case 2402278/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Z. Irving v British Telecommunications plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 2402278/2019
- Decision date
- 4 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Mr M. Gelling, Mr A Wells
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Z. Irving
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant's claims against British Telecommunications Ltd. The dismissed claims were discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010, breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments under section 20 Equality Act 2010, and unfair dismissal under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing. No written reasons were provided in the decision because no request had been made at the hearing, and written reasons would only follow if a written request was presented within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Breach of a duty to make reasonable adjustments under section 20 Equality Act 2010 failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996 failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 20 Equality Act 2010
- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
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.