Case 2414255/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Peacock v Teleperformance limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2414255/2021
- Decision date
- 11 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms C Gallagher, Mrs A Eyre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Peacock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the case at Manchester on 24 to 27 July 2023 before Employment Judge Cookson, Ms C Gallagher and Mrs A Eyre. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by a solicitor.
The unanimous judgment was that the claimant's complaints of direct disability discrimination, discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were not upheld and were dismissed. The judgment states that written reasons were requested at the hearing and would be provided in due course, but the supplied text contains no further reasoning or remedy decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of direct disability discrimination contrary to s13 Equality Act 2010 was not upheld and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability contrary to s15 Equality Act 2010 was not upheld and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments contrary to s20 and s21 Equality Act 2010 was not upheld and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s13 Equality Act 2010
- s15 Equality Act 2010
- s20 Equality Act 2010
- s21 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.