Case 6008094/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Jayshree Gogawale v Elekta Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008094/2024
- Decision date
- 11 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright
- Venue
- London South via CVP
- Panel members
- Mrs C Edwards, Mr C Mardner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jayshree Gogawale
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claim was solely about alleged failures to make reasonable adjustments, and not about direct or indirect discrimination or whether the claimant should have been investigated or placed on a PIP. The respondent disputed disability and knowledge, but the judgment proceeded to assess the pleaded PCPs and proposed adjustments.
The tribunal dismissed the reasonable-adjustments allegations other than the meeting on 20 August 2024. For that meeting, it found that the respondent had a PCP of not allowing accompaniment at informal meetings and should have allowed the claimant to be accompanied by her NHS Employment Specialist for moral support in a meeting requested to discuss her return to work. Remedy was not decided, and directions were given for a supplemental remedy statement and a one-day remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim. The allegation concerning refusal to allow the NHS Employment Specialist to attend the meeting on 20 August 2024 was upheld; the other reasonable-adjustments allegations were dismissed. Remedy was deferred. | 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.