Case 2402565/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Cash v The Co-operative Bank plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402565/2022
- Decision date
- 5 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr A. Egerton, Mr A. Gill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Cash
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent admitted liability for failing to make a reasonable adjustment contrary to section 20 Equality Act 2010. It accepted that its PCP of requiring employees to attend work put Miss C Cash at a substantial disadvantage, and that the adjustment that should have been made was allowing her to work from home with effect from 13 January 2021.
The tribunal ordered compensation of £1,367.68 for fuel costs incurred while attending work between 13 January 2021 and 18 December 2021, together with £15,000 for injury to feelings and £2,824.28 interest. The total compensation recorded in the judgment, including interest, was £19,191.96. The tribunal also made a recommendation under section 124(3) Equality Act 2010 that the employees identified in a schedule receive training by 27 September 2023 on CFS and on employers' obligations under the Equality Act 2010, with particular emphasis on the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The respondent admitted liability for a failure to make a reasonable adjustment under section 20 Equality Act 2010, accepting that its PCP of requiring employees to attend work placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage and that she should have been allowed to work from home from 13 January 2021. | Upheld | Disability | £16,368 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,192
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,368
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.