Case 6002382/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Represented herself, assisted by her sister Ms A Smithson For the v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 6002382/2024
- Decision date
- 6 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge James Representation
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Represented herself, assisted by her sister Ms A Smithson For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Sheffield from 2 to 6 February 2026 before Employment Judge James. The claimant was Ms S Dalton and the respondent was Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council.
The judgment records that the constructive unfair dismissal claim did not succeed and was dismissed. It also records that the Equality Act claims, including discriminatory constructive unfair dismissal, direct discrimination, s.15, reasonable adjustments, and harassment claims, did not succeed and were dismissed.
The judgment does not give reasons, findings of fact, remedy figures, or a separate list of panel members in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the claim for constructive unfair dismissal under s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996 does not succeed and is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment dismisses claims described as discriminatory constructive unfair dismissal, direct discrimination, s.15 Equality Act, and reasonable adjustments claims. Disability is inferred from the listing category because the judgment text identifies Equality Act claims but does not separately restate the protected characteristic. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the harassment claims under s.26 Equality Act 2010 do not succeed and are dismissed. Disability is inferred from the listing category because the judgment text identifies Equality Act claims but does not separately restate the protected characteristic. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.