Case 2408683/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Boardman v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2408683/2022
- Decision date
- 12 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms C Metcalfe, Dr B Tirohl
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Boardman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked from home during the COVID-19 pandemic and brought disability discrimination complaints after the respondent sought to require staff to return to the office for at least 50% of working time. The Tribunal dismissed the reasonable adjustments complaints concerning hot-desking, auxiliary aids, and, by majority, permanent home working as a base.
The Tribunal dismissed the victimisation complaints. It partly upheld the complaints of unfavourable treatment arising from disability, finding the complaints at paragraphs 18.2, 18.7.1 and 18.7.4 of the list of issues well founded while dismissing the remaining complaints in that category, including paragraph 18.6 by majority.
The Tribunal unanimously upheld the constructive unfair dismissal complaint. It also found a breach of the ACAS Code of Practice in respect of delay in hearing the grievance and delay in notifying the claimant of the grievance appeal outcome; remedy was deferred to a hearing listed for 8-9 June 2026 unless agreed earlier.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 | Failure to make reasonable adjustments complaints were dismissed: hot-desking PCP2, auxiliary aids, and by majority the home-working base PCP1. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The Tribunal unanimously concluded that the complaints of victimisation were not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Unfavourable treatment arising from disability was partly upheld: complaints at paragraphs 18.2, 18.7.1 and 18.7.4 were well founded; the other listed complaints were dismissed, including paragraph 18.6 by majority. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The Tribunal unanimously concluded that the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was well founded. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd 1987 ICR 142
- ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance
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.