Case 3201386/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T. Shevlin v John Wiley and Sons Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201386/2023
- Decision date
- 12 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms T. Jansen, Mr S. Woodhouse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T. Shevlin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at East London Hearing Centre on 11-12 January 2024 before Employment Judge Massarella, sitting with Ms T. Jansen and Mr S. Woodhouse. The claimant represented himself and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal’s judgment was that the claimant’s claim of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability and his claim of harassment related to disability were not well-founded. Both claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claim of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the claim of harassment related to disability was not well-founded and was 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.