Case 3310825/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Courtney Step-Marsden, of counsel For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3310825/2023
- Decision date
- 29 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams Members
- Panel members
- Mr R Jewell, Mr A Scott
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms Courtney Step-Marsden, of counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved unanimous liability judgment of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Watford (Employment Judge Hyams with members Mr R Jewell and Mr A Scott), heard over 19-27 August 2025 with private deliberations on 28-29 August 2025. The claimant, Mr M York, brought claims against Openreach Limited for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability under s.15 EqA 2010, failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss.20-21 EqA 2010, and unlawful deductions from wages.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was neither unfairly nor wrongfully dismissed. It found that the respondent did not directly discriminate against the claimant because of disability, did not breach s.15 of the Equality Act 2010, and did not fail to make a reasonable adjustment within the meaning of s.20. The reasonable adjustments claim was held not to succeed in any event, with the tribunal accepting that the respondent's investigation approach was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and that, in its judgment, the claimant had no difficulty in responding to questions about his conduct.
The unlawful deductions claim was dismissed: claims relating to 2016 night shift payments and dirt and discomfort allowance were out of time and outside the tribunal's jurisdiction, and the claim to Outer London Weighting payments failed because the claimant did not put forward sufficient evidence to establish entitlement or that he had asked Mr Butler to change his designated workplace. The tribunal concluded that none of the claimant's claims succeeded and all were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found the claimant was not unfairly dismissed within the meaning of s.98(4) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Tribunal found the claimant was not wrongfully dismissed; respondent relied on the implied term of trust and confidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim under s.13 EqA 2010 did not succeed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability claim under s.15 EqA 2010 did not succeed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under s.20/s.21 EqA 2010 did not succeed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claims to night shift payments and dirt/discomfort allowance (2016) were out of time; Outer London Weighting claim failed on the evidence. Earlier elements were effectively abandoned in closing submissions. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23(4A) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 20 Equality Act 2010
- section 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 39 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- IBM United Kingdom Holdings Ltd v Dalgleish [2018] IRLR 4
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.