Case 3302776/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Edwards, lay representative For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302776/2022
- Decision date
- 16 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms J Hancock, Ms S Johnstone
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms L Edwards, lay representative For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that at the relevant times the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, relying on the evidence about depression and anxiety. On that basis, the complaints of direct disability discrimination, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, and harassment related to disability were dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint, stating that it was not well-founded. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment extract.
The decision was given orally at the hearing and the written record contains the tribunal's conclusions but not detailed reasons beyond those summary findings.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times, on the basis of depression and anxiety. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability dismissed with the other disability discrimination complaints. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times. | 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.