Case 2414243/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mrs S Percival (solicitor) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2414243/2019
- Decision date
- 9 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Members
- Panel members
- Ms J A Beards, Mr Q Colborn
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mrs K Hall was disabled within the meaning of section 6(1) Equality Act 2010 by reason of a pituitary tumour, and that Royal Mail Group Limited had knowledge of that disability from 1 August 2019. On that basis, the claimant succeeded in her complaint of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the claimant was disabled by reason of a pituitary tumour and that the respondent had knowledge of that disability from 1 August 2019. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found this complaint was well founded and therefore successful. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 6(1) Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20 and 21 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.