Case 2500934/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Stedman v Parkdean Resorts UK Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500934/2024
- Decision date
- 9 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Members
- Venue
- Newcastle
- Panel members
- Mr S Wykes, Mr S Moules
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Stedman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, an entertainer who had applied for roles with the respondent, said he had ADHD and autism and complained that he was removed from the 2024 talent pool and barred from applying for future roles for 12 months. The tribunal recorded that it was considering only direct disability discrimination and victimisation, not a failure to make reasonable adjustments or discrimination arising from disability.
The tribunal considered disability under the Equality Act 2010, direct discrimination, victimisation, and the burden of proof. It found by majority that the respondent's reason for removing the claimant from the 2024 talent pool and for the 12-month ban was his unreliability and excessive email correspondence, not disability and not the claimant's 28 March 2024 email requesting reasonable adjustments.
A minority of members considered that the respondent had not explained the extension to a 12-month ban, but the majority, including the Employment Judge, did not agree. The tribunal dismissed both the disability discrimination and victimisation complaints as not well founded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal was concerned only with direct disability discrimination and victimisation. It dismissed the disability discrimination complaint as not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation complaint concerned the claimant's 28 March 2024 email requesting reasonable adjustments as an alleged protected act. The tribunal dismissed the complaint as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Section 13(1) Equality Act 2010
- Section 27 Equality Act 2010
- Section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Section 212(1) Equality Act 2010
- Greater Manchester Police v Bailey [2017] EWCA Civ 425
- Madarassey v Nomura International Plc [2007] ICR 867
- Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Limited [2013] ICR 591
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.