Case 3309480/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Price-Rowlands, barrister For the v Mr J Duffy, barrister — 2025
- Case reference
- 3309480/2023
- Decision date
- 19 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott KC
- Panel members
- Mr D Wharton, Mr D Sagar
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Price-Rowlands, barrister For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Work Coach employed by the Department of Work and Pensions from August 2012, brought claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination (direct, arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments), and unauthorised deduction of wages/breach of contract following her dismissal on capability grounds linked to long-term absence connected to pulmonary embolisms, POTS and Long Covid. The direct disability discrimination and wages/contract claims were withdrawn during the hearing.
The Tribunal found the dismissal unfair and upheld the s.15 Equality Act claim that the respondent treated the claimant unfavourably by dismissing her and by failing to refer her to the DWP long covid clinic from 11 October 2022, the reason being something arising from her disability (her absence). The Tribunal found this was not a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aim of managing the workforce, because the need to have the role performed did not override the claimant's entitlement to the benefit of the respondent's own policy. The reasonable adjustments claim under s.20 was dismissed.
On remedy, the Tribunal made no compensatory award for past or future loss of earnings, finding that even if the claimant had been referred to the DWP long covid clinic her dismissal would only have been delayed by about three months and she would have remained on nil pay during that period, after which a fair dismissal would have followed. The Tribunal awarded a basic award of £8,714.70, £500 for loss of statutory rights, £13,000 for injury to feelings (lower end of the middle band) and interest of £2,521.64 at 8% over 885 days, producing a total award of £24,236.34.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996 well founded; claimant unfairly dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant on the first day of the 2025 hearing. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 well founded (failure to refer to DWP long covid clinic and dismissal); award not split per claim. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under s.20 Equality Act 2010 not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Sum agreed during 2024 hearing; paid in respondent's February 2025 salary run and claim withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Pleaded together with the unauthorised deduction of wages claim; withdrawn following payment in February 2025. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £24,236
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £8,715
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £500
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 20 Equality Act 2010
- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- Royal Bank of Scotland v O'Doherty UKEAT/0307/14
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.