Case 3334406/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Renner v Dr J Pandya and Dr S Pandya practising as JS Medical Practice — 2021
- Case reference
- 3334406/2018
- Decision date
- 12 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bartlett Date
- Venue
- Watford via CVP
- Panel members
- Mr Juden, Mr Poil
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Renner
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford via CVP on 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 November 2021, Employment Judge Bartlett sat with Mr Juden and Mr Poil to hear Ms C Renner's claims against Dr J Pandya and Dr S Pandya practising as JS Medical Practice. The written judgment records the dismissal of the claimant's claims for direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
The tribunal also found that Ms Renner was not unfairly dismissed and did not suffer unlawful deductions from wages. The decision states that all of the claimant's claims were dismissed in their entirety, and it records no monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records this as a claim for direct discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records this as a claim for discrimination arising from disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records this as a claim that the respondent breached the duty to make reasonable adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.