Case 2602580/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Bidwell v The Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police — 2024
- Case reference
- 2602580/2022
- Decision date
- 23 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh
- Venue
- Midlands East
- Panel members
- Mr R Taylor, Mr C Tansley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Bidwell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded a unanimous judgment. The claimant's complaint of direct disability discrimination was withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal.
The remaining disability-related complaints were not well-founded and were dismissed. These were complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, and harassment related to disability.
No remedy or monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
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| Disability discrimination | The complaint of direct disability discrimination was withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to disability 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.