Case 2503448/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Earle v The Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police — 2020
- Case reference
- 2503448/2018
- Decision date
- 26 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden
- Panel members
- Mr S Hunter, Mrs D Newey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Middlesbrough on 19-21 and 24-26 February 2020 before Employment Judge Aspden, with Mr S Hunter and Mrs D Newey sitting as the lay members. Ms V Earle was represented by Ms J Callan, counsel, and the Respondent, the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police, was represented by Ms R Mellor, counsel.
The Tribunal's unanimous judgment was that the Claimant's complaints of discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010 were not made out and were dismissed. The written record does not set out the Tribunal's detailed reasoning because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The decision record therefore records dismissal of the discrimination claim only, with no award of compensation or other remedy stated in the written judgment. The written record was signed on 27 February 2020 and notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the usual post-hearing procedure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the Claimant's complaints of discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010 were not made out. The extracted judgment text does not specify the particular theory of discrimination or separate heads of claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.