Case 3308639/2024 · Employment Tribunal
KJL v Mno — 2026
- Case reference
- 3308639/2024
- Decision date
- 24 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
KJL
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that KJL's claims of disability-related harassment, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were not well-founded and failed. The maternity discrimination claim was also found not well-founded and failed.
The victimisation and constructive unfair dismissal claims were likewise found not well-founded and failed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment does not record the Tribunal's factual findings or reasoning. It records no monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment relating to disability was found not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was found not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability was found not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation was found not well-founded and failed; the written judgment does not identify the underlying protected act or characteristic. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Maternity discrimination was found not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments was found not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal was found not well-founded and failed. |
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.