Case 6003285/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Rogers v Department for Work and Pensions — 2026
- Case reference
- 6003285/2025
- Decision date
- 11 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Vincent Ryan
- Venue
- Mold
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Rogers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge T Vincent Ryan found that, at the relevant times from late 2023 to December 2024, with the likelihood of continuing disability, Mr S Rogers was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of Health Anxiety, also known as Illness Anxiety Disorder or Hypochondriasis.
The tribunal held that Mr Rogers's complaints of disability discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments could therefore proceed, together with his victimisation claim. The judgment did not determine the merits of those claims and recorded no remedy or monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal determined that Mr Rogers was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 and that his failure to make reasonable adjustments complaints could proceed; it did not determine the merits of those complaints. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records that the victimisation claim could proceed; it does not determine the merits of that claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 Equality Act 2010
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.