Case 2407485/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D. Jones v The Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary — 2023
- Case reference
- 2407485/2021
- Decision date
- 14 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr D. Wilson, Ms V. Worthington
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D. Jones
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D. Jones brought complaints under the Equality Act 2010 against The Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary. The tribunal identified claims under section 13 (direct discrimination), section 15 (discrimination arising from disability), and section 21 (failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments).
The tribunal held that none of those complaints succeeded. Its judgment states that the claims under sections 13, 15 and 21 did not succeed, and that the claim was dismissed.
No monetary remedy was awarded, and the written decision records no separate compensation or other award. The hearing was conducted at Manchester on 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 July 2023 before Employment Judge Leach with lay members Mr D. Wilson and Ms V. Worthington.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint under section 13 Equality Act 2010 (direct discrimination). | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint under section 15 Equality Act 2010 (discrimination arising from disability). | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint under section 21 Equality Act 2010 (failure to comply with duty to make adjustments). | 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.