Case 6007586/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mark Jennings v Department for Work and Pensions — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007586/2024
- Decision date
- 26 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright Tribunal
- Panel members
- L Lindsay, P Adkins
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mark Jennings
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant brought claims against the Department for Work and Pensions including direct religious belief discrimination, indirect religious belief discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The direct religious belief discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. The indirect religious belief discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments claims were each recorded as without merit and dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment states that the claim of direct religious belief discrimination was dismissed upon being withdrawn. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment states that the claim of indirect religious belief discrimination was without merit and dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments was without merit and dismissed. No written reasons are provided in the text. | 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.