Case 3303468/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Claimant v Rumanyika v Secretary of State for Justice — 2024

Case reference: 3303468/2022
Decision date: 12 July 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hawksworth
Venue: Reading
Panel members: Ms C Anderson, Mr J Appleton

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Respondent

Rumanyika v Secretary of State for Justice

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The unanimous tribunal, consisting of Employment Judge Hawksworth with Ms C Anderson and Mr J Appleton, heard the case at Reading and gave judgment on 12 July 2024. It held that the claimant's complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability succeeded in part. The reasonable adjustment complaint succeeded in relation to the requirement to return to work at HMP Bullingdon on 12 January 2022, and the section 15 complaint succeeded in relation to the stage 1 absence warning issued on 22 March 2022 and the appeal decision of 20 April 2022.

The tribunal also found that the claimant had made protected disclosures and that his protected disclosure detriment complaints succeeded in part. It upheld the complaint that the respondent failed to approve transfer requests between October 2021 and 17 December 2021, and the complaint that it failed to follow the advice or support in occupational health reports dated 9 September 2021 and 28 February 2022 in respect of the transfer request.

Other complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments, discrimination arising from disability, and protected disclosure detriment were dismissed. The tribunal further dismissed the complaints of direct disability discrimination, direct race discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, race-related harassment, and victimisation. The extracted judgment does not record any monetary award.

Claims and outcomes

9 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Failure to make a reasonable adjustment contrary to sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 succeeded in relation to the requirement to return to work at HMP Bullingdon applied on 12 January 2022. The judgment says the complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded in part, with other complaints failing.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Discrimination arising from disability contrary to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 succeeded in relation to the stage 1 absence warning issued on 22 March 2022 and the decision on 20 April 2022 not to uphold the appeal against that warning. The judgment says the complaint succeeded in part, with other complaints failing.	Upheld	Disability	—
Whistleblowing	Protected disclosure detriment under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded in relation to the failure to approve the claimant's transfer requests between October 2021 and 17 December 2021.	Upheld	—	—
Whistleblowing	Protected disclosure detriment under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded in relation to the failure to follow the advice/support in occupational health reports dated 9 September 2021 and 28 February 2022 in respect of the claimant's transfer request.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.