Case 3309272/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Coverman, FRU For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3309272/2022
- Decision date
- 3 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Tribunal Member L Thompson, Tribunal Member A Moriarty
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr C Coverman, FRU For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard at Watford Employment Tribunal on 20, 21, 22 and 23 May 2024 before Employment Judge G D Davison with Tribunal Member L Thompson and Tribunal Member A Moriarty. The claimant was represented by Mr C Coverman, FRU, and the respondent by Ms J Duane, Counsel.
The tribunal dismissed the claim of discrimination arising from disability under s.15 of the Equality Act 2010. It also dismissed the claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss.20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. Each claim was recorded as not well-founded.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the judgment. No remedy was awarded in the written record.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim under s.15 Equality Act 2010; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under ss.20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 for failure to make reasonable adjustments; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- ss.20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
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.