Case 2503454/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Thomas v Hertel (UK) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2503454/2019
- Decision date
- 22 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beever
- Panel members
- Ms S Don, Mr G Gallagher
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Newcastle by CVP on 17-19 March 2021 before Employment Judge Beever, Ms S Don and Mr G Gallagher, determined Mr A Thomas's disability discrimination claims against Hertel (UK) Limited. It held that the claim in respect of failure to make a reasonable adjustment was well founded and succeeded.
The tribunal rejected the remaining disability-related claims. It found that the claims of discrimination arising from disability, harassment and victimisation were not well founded and dismissed them. The judgment did not set out any monetary remedy, because a separate remedy hearing was listed for 12 May 2021, subject to the parties reaching agreement beforehand.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claim in respect of failure to make a reasonable adjustment well founded and succeeding. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim of discrimination arising from disability was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The harassment claim was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation claim was found not well founded and dismissed. | 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.