Case 2414335/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Abbott v Home Office — 2021
- Case reference
- 2414335/2019
- Decision date
- 8 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkett
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mrs C Clover, Mr A Egerton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Abbott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim of indirect discrimination on the protected characteristic of sex, finding that it was not well founded.
The Tribunal upheld the claimant's claims of indirect discrimination on the protected characteristic of disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments, finding that both were well founded.
The respondent was ordered to pay compensation of £7,876.32. This comprised £2,390.40 for loss of earnings, £4,800 for injury to feelings, and interest of £136.75 on loss of earnings and £549.17 on injury to feelings.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records that the claimant's claim of indirect discrimination on the protected characteristic of sex was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the claimant's claim of indirect discrimination on the protected characteristic of disability was well founded and succeeded. Compensation was awarded globally with the reasonable adjustments claim, not split by claim. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the respondent failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments and that this claim was well founded and succeeded. Compensation was awarded globally with the indirect disability discrimination claim, not split by claim. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,876
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,390
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.