Case 2501755/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Steven Carruthers v Sodexo Limited — 2019

Case reference: 2501755/2018
Decision date: 25 September 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Morris Members
Venue: North Shields Hearing Centre
Panel members: Ms M Clayton, Mrs D Winter

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Steven Carruthers

Respondent

Sodexo Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant's complaint under section 21 of the Equality Act 2010 that the respondent had failed to comply with the section 20 duty to make reasonable adjustments for disadvantage caused by a provision, criterion or practice.

The tribunal also unanimously dismissed the claimant's complaint under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 that the respondent had harassed him by engaging in unwanted conduct related to disability. The judgment records both complaints as not well-founded and contains no remedy award.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The complaint was pleaded under section 21 of the Equality Act 2010 as failure to comply with the section 20 duty to make reasonable adjustments. It was not well-founded and was dismissed.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Harassment	The complaint was pleaded under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 as unwanted conduct related to disability. It was not well-founded and was dismissed.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.