Case 2601591/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A. Rogers v Microlise Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2601591/2021
- Decision date
- 11 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Le Grys
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Dr C. Hole, Mr E. Besse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A. Rogers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal sat in Bristol on 24 to 28 April 2023 before Employment Judge Le Grys, Dr C. Hole and Mr E. Besse. In its unanimous liability judgment, it found that Mr A. Rogers' claims for discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and unfair dismissal were well founded and succeeded. It also found that his claim for a redundancy payment was not well founded and did not succeed.
The judgment is a liability-only decision. Remedy was adjourned to a further hearing on 8 September 2023, and the Tribunal gave case management directions for the remedy hearing, including agreement of instructions for any expert evidence by 26 May 2023 and exchange of the evidence bundle by 18 August 2023. The extracted text does not record any monetary award in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Tribunal described this claim as discrimination arising from disability. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Tribunal described this claim as discrimination on the basis of a failure to make reasonable adjustments. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
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.