Case 2406177/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Pill v Department for Work and Pensions — 2022
- Case reference
- 2406177/2019
- Decision date
- 25 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Ms J Pennie, Ms C Doyle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Pill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010, and for discrimination arising out of disability under section 15 of the Act, were lodged within the relevant time limit under section 123 because they related to a continuing state of affairs.
The tribunal held that the reasonable adjustments claims were well-founded and succeeded. It also held that the section 15 discrimination arising out of disability claims were well-founded and succeeded.
The tribunal further held that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and succeeded. Reasons were given orally, and the written judgment does not set out remedy or monetary awards.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claims under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 for failure to make reasonable adjustments were found well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claims under section 15 Equality Act 2010 for discrimination arising out of disability were found well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was found well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 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.