Case 3200525/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Desai v London Borough of Waltham Forest — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200525/2019
- Decision date
- 11 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Members
- Panel members
- Ms A Berry, Ms M Daniels
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Desai
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at East London Hearing Centre by Cloud Video Platform on 9, 10 and 11 February 2021 before Employment Judge Russell with members Ms A Berry and Ms M Daniels.
The judgment records that the claim of unfair dismissal contrary to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 failed and was dismissed. It also records that the claims of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 and failure to make reasonable adjustments under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 failed and were dismissed.
No remedy or monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim of unfair dismissal contrary to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 fails and is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claim of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability contrary to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 fails and is dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments contrary to section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 fails and is dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 15 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 20 of the Equality Act 2010
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.