Case 6002532/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Clair-Louise Harris v Wave Multi-Academy Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002532/2023
- Decision date
- 30 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Volkmer Tribunal
- Venue
- Exeter
- Panel members
- Tribunal Member Blake, Tribunal Member Fellows
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Clair-Louise Harris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld Miss Harris's complaint of unfair dismissal against Wave Multi-Academy Trust. It also upheld the complaint of discrimination arising from disability.
The tribunal upheld indirect discrimination in relation to phased return, but dismissed the remaining indirect discrimination complaints. It upheld failure to make reasonable adjustments complaints in relation to phased return and allocated breaks, and dismissed the remaining reasonable adjustments complaints. Remedy was left to be determined at a separate hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and upheld. Remedy was reserved to a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of discrimination arising from disability was well-founded and upheld. Remedy was reserved to a separate hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of indirect discrimination in relation to phased return was well-founded and upheld; the remaining indirect discrimination complaints were dismissed. Remedy was reserved to a separate hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments were upheld in relation to phased return and allocated breaks; the remaining reasonable adjustments complaints were dismissed. Remedy was reserved to a separate hearing. | Upheld | 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.