Case 3311761/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311761/2022
- Decision date
- 15 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mrs J Wood, Dr C Whitehouse
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim of direct disability discrimination, finding that it was not well founded. No other remedy was awarded on that claim.
The tribunal upheld the complaint that the respondent breached the duty to make reasonable adjustments. It found that the respondent failed to direct the claimant to take breaks or time away from typing duties to alleviate pain in his elbow between 24 May 2022 and 9 June 2022.
The tribunal awarded compensation of £1,662.03 for that breach. The award comprised £1,500 for injury to feelings and £162.03 interest, calculated at 8% from 1 June 2022, the mid-point between 24 May 2022 and 9 June 2022, and 4 October 2023, being 491 days at £0.33 per day.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was found not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The respondent breached the duty to make reasonable adjustments by failing to direct the claimant to take breaks or time away from typing duties to alleviate pain in his elbow between 24 May 2022 and 9 June 2022. | Upheld | Disability | £1,662 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,662
- across all upheld claims
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.