Case 3318811/2019 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 3318811/2019
Decision date: 17 March 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge George
Venue: Reading
Panel members: Ms A Brown, Mr F Wright

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal treated the claimant's 17 October 2018 letter as the only alleged protected disclosure relied on at the hearing. It found that the letter contained information about workload, lack of support and the effect on the claimant's health, and that it tended to show that health and safety may have been endangered. However, it held that the claimant did not make the disclosure in the reasonable belief that it was in the public interest, so it was not a protected disclosure. The detriment allegations based on the respondent's response to that letter therefore failed, with the tribunal finding that the delays and handling reflected the claimant's request for clarification, her wish for an informal process, and later appeal and investigation steps rather than retaliation for a protected disclosure.

On disability, the tribunal found that the claimant had a mental impairment with substantial adverse effects from at least the end of February or beginning of March 2018, but not from October 2017. It held that the respondent had constructive knowledge of disability by late February or early March 2018 and actual knowledge by July 2018 after Occupational Health reported that the claimant was likely covered by the Equality Act 2010. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because a stress risk assessment had been carried out on 20 February 2018, the roles in the department were being delineated, temporary cover was being arranged, and the tribunal concluded that no further reasonable step was shown that would have avoided the disadvantage before the claimant went off sick on 6 June 2018.

For dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the department underwent a genuine restructure with financial and educational objectives and that the claimant's post was selected as part of that broader exercise. It found that the reason for dismissal was redundancy, not disability, sickness absence or protected disclosure, and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, the automatic unfair dismissal claim and the direct and section 15 discrimination claims. It also held that the consultation and appeal process were fair in all the circumstances. No remedy was awarded because all claims failed.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The tribunal found the 17 October 2018 letter was not a protected disclosure because the claimant did not make it in the reasonable belief that it was in the public interest. The alleged failures to consider the letter, address the issues raised, carry out a risk assessment, and reduce workload were therefore not done on the ground of protected disclosure.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	The automatic unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found the reason for dismissal was redundancy, not any protected disclosure.	Dismissed	—	—
Disability discrimination	Direct disability discrimination was not made out because the tribunal found the claimant was selected for redundancy as part of a genuine restructure, not because of disability or sickness absence.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The s.15 claim failed because the tribunal found dismissal was for redundancy, not because of sickness absence arising from disability, and the respondent did not need to rely on justification.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The reasonable adjustments claim failed because, although the tribunal found the claimant was disabled from late February or early March 2018, it held the respondent had already carried out a stress risk assessment, was delineating roles, and had not omitted any further step that was reasonable to avoid the disadvantage.

Legal tests applied

11 references

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 .

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.