Case 3310886/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K King v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2025
- Case reference
- 3310886/2023
- Decision date
- 24 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Members
- Venue
- Watford employment Tribunal
- Panel members
- Mrs J Hancock, Mr Bean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K King
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Ms King was unfairly dismissed. The judgment does not include written reasons, and states that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's direct race discrimination claim. It upheld disability-related claims, finding that the dismissal was an act of discrimination arising from disability and that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by not exploring redeployment opportunities and redeploying the claimant to an alternative prison.
No remedy figures or breakdown of compensation are set out in the judgment text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. No written reasons or remedy are included in the supplied judgment text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's direct race discrimination claim is dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's dismissal was an act of discrimination arising from disability. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by not exploring redeployment opportunities and redeploying the claimant to an alternative prison. | Upheld | Disability | — |
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.