Case 2502373/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Roberts v The University of Newcastle Upon Tyne — 2022
- Case reference
- 2502373/2020
- Decision date
- 17 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Sheila
- Venue
- Newcastle Civil & Family Courts and Tribunal Centre
- Panel members
- Sheila Don, Paul Curtis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs S Roberts brought a complaint of disability discrimination against the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, framed as a failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20-21 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal, sitting at Newcastle Civil & Family Courts and Tribunal Centre on 14-17 February 2022, found that the complaint was not well founded.
The only recorded outcome in the written judgment is dismissal of the reasonable adjustments complaint. No monetary remedy is recorded in the decision.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of disability discrimination by way of failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20-21 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 20-21 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.