Case 3303629/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Chapman v Carlisle Security Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303629/2019
- Decision date
- 12 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mrs D Radcliffe, Ms L Hopley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Chapman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Manchester on 18, 19 and 20 January 2021, a tribunal consisting of Employment Judge Ross, Mrs D Radcliffe and Ms L Hopley unanimously held that Ms J Chapman succeeded in her claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 to 21 of the Equality Act 2010 and in her claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 that she had been subjected to unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. The tribunal also upheld, in the alternative, her claim that she had been unfairly dismissed by constructive dismissal under sections 95 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim under sections 20-21 Equality Act 2010 for failure to make reasonable adjustments. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010 for unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Alternative claim that the claimant was unfairly (constructively) dismissed under sections 95 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
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.