Case 3300400/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300400/2023
- Decision date
- 16 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 16 August 2023 Employment Judge S Moore heard preliminary issues in a case brought by Mr S C Winwright against TSYS Managed Services EMEA Ltd. The claimant had worked as a Fraud Analyst from 16 September 2022 to 1 December 2022, when he was summarily dismissed. His complaint was understood to include a disability discrimination allegation, in substance a reasonable adjustments complaint about being required to work shifts ending at 8.00pm, and an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a 2016 psychological assessment which diagnosed a specific learning difficulty, described in the report as Dyslexia. It nevertheless found that he had not shown a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. The judge relied on the evidence that he regularly used public transport for local journeys, had no difficulty travelling to and from work when his shift finished at 6.30pm, and had set out the relevant timetables in emails complaining about the inconvenience and cost of the 8.00pm journey rather than saying that Dyslexia made the journey impossible. The tribunal also noted that his application form said he did not consider himself disabled, gave only "N/A (dyslexia - spellings)" in response to a health/disability question, and that a Disabled Students' Allowances report said he had no mobility issues and no difficulty navigating around campus.
The tribunal therefore held that Mr Winwright was not a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time and struck out the disability discrimination complaint. It also struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because he did not have two years' service, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear it. The judgment records that the claim was dismissed in its entirety.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim was understood as a complaint under sections 20 and 21 EqA 2010 about a PCP requiring shifts until 8.00pm; struck out because the claimant was found not to be a disabled person within section 6 EqA 2010 at the material time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant did not have two years' service and the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 212(1) Equality Act 2010
- paragraph B1 of the Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability 2011
- two years' service requirement
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.