Case 2402916/2021 · Employment Tribunal
L Darby v The Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402916/2021
- Decision date
- 27 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
- Panel members
- D Wilson, B Tirohl
Parties
3 namedClaimant
L Darby
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously found that the claimant's complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, and victimisation were well-founded and succeeded.
On victimisation, the Tribunal found that the second respondent's grievance appeal outcome contained inaccuracies and conclusions adverse to the claimant, including treatment of the UPP/UAP process and the revoked written improvement notice. It concluded that the claimant was subjected to the identified detriments because she had done protected acts, including her grievance and first Tribunal claim.
The judgment states that all complaints succeeded and that remedy would be determined at a separate hearing to be listed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was found well-founded and succeeded. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was found well-founded and succeeded. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation was found well-founded and succeeded. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Sections 20/21 Equality Act 2010
- Section 15 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.