Case 3203332/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Rosemary Charles v London Underground Limited and 2 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 3203332/2021
- Decision date
- 29 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Brien
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Rosemary Charles
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing to decide whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of s6 of the Equality Act 2010. The underlying claims were disability discrimination and consequential victimisation, but the judgment did not determine liability on those claims.
The respondent no longer challenged the long-term element after the evidence and submissions, and the remaining issue was whether the claimant's menorrhagia and/or polycystic ovary syndrome had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. The Tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence about heavy and prolonged bleeding, spontaneous escape of clear fluid, interrupted sleep, avoidance of trips where facilities were unavailable, and effects on reading, watching television, conversation, concentration and enjoyment of life.
The Tribunal found those effects to be substantial adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities and held that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of s6 of the Equality Act 2010. The case was then listed for a later final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal determined only the preliminary issue that the claimant was disabled within s6 of the Equality Act 2010 at all material times. Liability for disability discrimination and victimisation was not decided in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s6 Equality Act 2010
- balance of probabilities
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.