Case 3331226/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v The Governors of Weald Primary School — 2020
- Case reference
- 3331226/2018
- Decision date
- 12 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Daniels Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 14 February 2020 the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay five deposits of £75 each if she wished to continue pursuing the listed allegations. The allegations were: direct disability discrimination said to arise from the respondent's handling of a possible return to work on or about 4 January 2018; failure to seek further occupational health or medical guidance between September 2016 and October 2017 under s.13 and s.15 of the Equality Act 2010; an allegation under s.13 and/or s.26 about being expected to attend a meeting after she had been able to attend school to collect her child; and an unfair dismissal / constructive dismissal claim under s.98 ERA 1996.
No deposit was paid within the time allowed. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claimant's claims in their entirety and said that, for the avoidance of doubt, all claims were dismissed forthwith. The judgment is an order following non-payment of deposits and contains no merits findings or monetary award beyond the deposit conditions.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination allegation about the respondent's alleged failure to take steps to consider or properly manage the claimant's safety regarding a possible return to work in the same role on or about 4 January 2018. A £75 deposit was ordered; no deposit was paid. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Allegation that the respondent failed to seek further occupational health/medical guidance between September 2016 and October 2017 under s.13 EA 2010. A £75 deposit was ordered; no deposit was paid. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Allegation that the respondent failed to seek further occupational health/medical guidance between September 2016 and October 2017 under s.15 EA 2010. A £75 deposit was ordered; no deposit was paid. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Allegation under s.13 and/or s.26 EA 2010 about expecting the claimant to attend a meeting because she had been able to attend school to collect her child. A £75 deposit was ordered; no deposit was paid. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Unfair dismissal / constructive dismissal claim under s.98 ERA 1996. A £75 deposit was ordered; no deposit was paid. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.98 ERA 1996
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.