Case 2411678/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Bates v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police Representatives For the — 2022
- Case reference
- 2411678/2023
- Decision date
- 1 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dennehy
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr Q Colborn, Ms H Sheard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Bates
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remedy judgment following a finding that the respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant's disability under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. The unadjusted practices identified were allocating the claimant and other case workers a caseload of between 50 and 68 cases, allocating a caseload of which approximately 90% were complex psychological cases, and not checking in with the claimant regularly about her mental wellbeing from 1 November 2022.
The Tribunal awarded the claimant a cumulative sum of £15,000 in respect of those failures. It made no award for financial losses and made no recommendation.
Interest of £3,470.24 was added under the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996, producing a total award of £18,470.24, payable within 14 days of receipt of the Judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Remedy judgment for failure to make reasonable adjustments under Equality Act 2010 sections 20 and 21. £15,000 awarded for injury to feelings (no financial loss awarded); interest of £3,470.24 added under the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996, bringing the total to £18,470.24. | Upheld | Disability | £15,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,470
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Equality Act 2010 sections 20 & 21
- Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996
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.