Case 6000953/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Thomas v Wienerberger Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6000953/2024
- Decision date
- 18 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Venue
- Hull
- Panel members
- Mr M Weller, Mr M Taj
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal (Employment Judge JM Wade with Mr M Weller and Mr M Taj), sitting at Hull, gave a unanimous judgment after a multi-day hearing. The claimant represented himself; the respondent was represented by a solicitor.
The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded. Disability-related harassment succeeded in part (allegations 1, 8 and 9), with the remainder dismissed. The complaints of victimisation and constructive unfair dismissal were not well-founded and were dismissed.
The Tribunal awarded £17,000 for injury to feelings and £5,615.12 in interest, giving a total payable by the respondent of £22,615.12. Provision was made for any costs or preparation time application within 28 days. Oral full reasons were given for liability and summary reasons for remedy.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Disability-related harassment succeeded on allegations 1, 8 and 9; remaining harassment allegations dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaints dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal complaint not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,615
- across all upheld claims
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.