Case 3309728/2022 · Employment Tribunal

in person For the v Respondent — 2025

Case reference: 3309728/2022
Decision date: 21 January 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge French
Venue: Watford
Panel members: Ms S Campbell, Ms A Brosnan

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

in person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal recorded that at the relevant times the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of generalised anxiety disorder.

The tribunal dismissed the complaints of direct disability discrimination, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment related to disability, and victimisation as not well-founded.

The tribunal also dismissed the holiday pay complaint. It found that the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit, that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time, and that in any event the complaint was not well-founded.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The complaints of direct disability discrimination, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability were each dismissed as not well-founded.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Harassment	The complaint of harassment related to disability was dismissed as not well-founded.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Victimisation	The complaint of victimisation was dismissed as not well-founded.	Dismissed	—	—
Holiday pay	The holiday pay complaint was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit, it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time, and in any event it was not well-founded.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

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.