Case 3331991/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Elchao (Free v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3331991/2018
- Decision date
- 17 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KJ Palmer
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
- Panel members
- Mrs L Daniels, Mrs S Laurence-Doig
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr R Elchao (Free
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Bury St Edmunds before Employment Judge KJ Palmer with members Mrs L Daniels and Mrs S Laurence-Doig, gave a unanimous judgment after hearings on 2, 3, 4 and 5 March 2020. It found that Mr MA Tagg was not a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. On that basis, his claims for a failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 failed and were dismissed.
The claimant's claim of direct discrimination on the ground of age also failed and was dismissed. The tribunal did not record any remedy because none of the claims succeeded.
The claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim likewise failed and was dismissed. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, and no written reasons were provided with the record unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, so the reasonable adjustments claims under sections 20 and 21 failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | The claimant's direct age discrimination claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.20 and s.21 Equality Act 2010
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.