Case 2415064/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Vernel v Bolton NHS Foundation Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415064/2019
- Decision date
- 15 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Members
- Panel members
- Mr J Flynn, Mrs L Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Vernel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Manchester, sitting by CVP on 6, 7, 8 and 9 April 2021, comprised Employment Judge Johnson with lay members Mr J Flynn and Mrs L Taylor. It first found that Mr S Vernel was disabled within the meaning of section 6(1) Equality Act 2010 by reason of depression from June 2019.
Despite that finding, the complaint that Bolton NHS Foundation Trust failed to comply with its duty to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed as not well founded. The judgment records that this claim was unsuccessful.
The claimant's separate complaint that he was automatically unfairly dismissed for the reason or principal reason of taking time off in accordance with section 57A ERA, contrary to section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996, was also dismissed as not well founded. No monetary remedy was recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6(1) Equality Act 2010 by reason of depression from June 2019, but the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 was dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant's complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for the reason or principal reason that he had taken time off in accordance with section 57A ERA and contrary to section 99 ERA 1996 was dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.