Case 6000394/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Heeley v Staff Management Limited HELD in Leeds by CVP — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000394/2024
- Decision date
- 20 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Heeley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Shulman heard a preliminary issue on whether Mr S Heeley had a disability within section 6 Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period, identified as July 2023 to 12 January 2024. The tribunal recorded that the claimant said his condition was back pain causing difficulty with dressing, cleaning, gardening and lifting, and that he also described flare-ups affecting standing, sitting, driving, bending and using the toilet. It also noted that he had answered "no" to the pre-employment question about an illness or impairment affecting work, while acknowledging past back trouble and saying he had measures in place to prevent recurrence.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination - disability. Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant did not have a disability within section 6 EqA during the relevant period. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | Failure to make reasonable adjustments. Not separately enumerated in the taxonomy, so classified as other. Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant did not have a disability within section 6 EqA during the relevant period. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.6(1) EqA 2010
- s.212(1) EqA 2010
- 2011 disability guidance
- Elliott v Dorset County Council UK EAT/0197/20/LA (V)
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.