Case 2402777/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Ms P Hargreaves v Reactive Solutions FM Ltd — 2023

Case reference: 2402777/2022
Decision date: 27 June 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Johnson MEMBERS
Panel members: Mr R Cunningham, Ms A Eyre

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms P Hargreaves

Respondent

Reactive Solutions FM Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Ms Hargreaves worked for Reactive Solutions FM Limited as an office manager from July 2020. The respondent accepted that she was disabled by reason of retinal dystrophy and sight loss from December 2020. An Access to Work assessment in March 2021 recommended equipment and training costing £5,028.40. The tribunal found that the respondent incorrectly expected Access to Work to sort out implementation, and although some items were eventually obtained, most of the recommendations were not put in place before the employment ended. That failure amounted to a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010, and the tribunal directed that remedy would be determined at a later hearing before the same panel.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

This 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
Whistleblowing	Automatic unfair dismissal complaint under section 103A ERA 1996. The tribunal found that the claimant did not make qualifying protected disclosures under section 43B, and therefore the dismissal was not for the reason or principal reason that she had made a protected disclosure.	Dismissed	—	—
Harassment	Complaint under section 26 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal did not accept that the alleged comments about a white stick, shutting her eyes, or applying for a guide dog were made as alleged.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Direct disability discrimination complaint under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal did not find that the alleged treatment, including the dismissal-related allegations and alleged comments, was because of disability.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Harassment	Complaint under section 26 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal did not accept that the alleged sexual or sex-related comments were proved as alleged, and found the conduct complained of was not unwanted conduct related to sex or of a sexual nature.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Disability discrimination	Failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held the respondent failed to purchase the Access to Work equipment without delay and failed to attend or undertake the recommended training. Remedy was left to a later hearing.

Legal tests applied

11 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.