Case 2602601/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Davey v Lincoln College — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602601/2018
- Decision date
- 20 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
- Venue
- Lincoln
- Panel members
- Mrs JM Bonser, Mr C Goldson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Davey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal sat in Lincoln before Employment Judge Victoria Butler, Mrs JM Bonser and Mr C Goldson. Its unanimous decision was recorded on 20 March 2020. The written judgment sets out outcomes only and notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, so no written reasons accompany this record.
The tribunal upheld the Claimant's claim of discrimination arising from disability and his claim that the Respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments. It also upheld his claim of direct age discrimination. The record does not set out the factual findings or legal reasoning in writing, only that each of those claims was found to be well-founded.
The tribunal dismissed the Claimant's claim of harassment relating to age, stating that it was not well-founded. It also upheld the unfair dismissal claim, finding that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed. No remedy figure or split between claims is recorded in the written judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim pleaded and recorded as discrimination arising from disability; the judgment states it was well-founded and succeeds. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments; the judgment states it was well-founded and succeeds. The written record does not split remedy by claim. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination claim; the judgment states it was well-founded and succeeds. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Harassment | Harassment relating to age; the judgment states it was not well-founded and is dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim that the Respondent unfairly dismissed the Claimant was found well-founded and succeeds. | Upheld | — | — |
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.