Case 2403273/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Sheerin v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs — 2022
- Case reference
- 2403273/2020
- Decision date
- 4 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater
- Panel members
- Mrs A Ramsden, Mr A Wells
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Sheerin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously found that the claimant's complaint of discrimination arising from disability about dismissal was well founded.
The Tribunal also found that the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was well founded in relation to failures on 9 and 17 December 2020 to provide a “buddy” to assist the claimant to make telephone calls. The remainder of the reasonable adjustments complaint was not well founded.
Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was left to a separate remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination arising from disability about dismissal was found well founded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was found well founded in relation to failures on 9 and 17 December 2020 to provide a “buddy” to assist the claimant to make telephone calls. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The remainder of the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was found not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.