Case 3207453/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Worley v EE Limited FINAL HEARING — 2023
- Case reference
- 3207453/2021
- Decision date
- 24 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shore Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms J Isherwood, Miss S Harwood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Worley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr L Worley, brought claims against EE Limited for unfair dismissal, breach of contract (failure to pay notice pay), indirect discrimination because of disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal heard the case at East London Hearing Centre before Employment Judge Shore, sitting with Ms J Isherwood and Miss S Harwood.
The tribunal unanimously dismissed the unfair dismissal claim and the breach of contract claim. It also found that the claimant had not shown, on the balance of probabilities, that he was a disabled person at the time the case concerned. On that basis, both disability discrimination claims failed: the claim of indirect discrimination because of disability and the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Because all claims failed, the tribunal said there was no requirement to deal with remedy.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim described in the judgment as failure to pay notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim described in the judgment as indirect discrimination because of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim described in the judgment as failure to make reasonable adjustments. | 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.