Case 6008588/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs I Masiulyte-Samulioniene v Pro Trainings Europe Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008588/2024
- Decision date
- 23 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs I Masiulyte-Samulioniene
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 22 May 2025 before Employment Judge Reid, the tribunal considered the claimant's disability discrimination complaint against Pro Trainings Europe Limited. It found that Mrs I Masiulyte-Samulioniene was not a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the time of the matters complained of, and on that basis dismissed the disability discrimination claim.
The tribunal also ruled on limitation. It held that the allegation that the claimant was excluded from meetings from January 2024 formed part of conduct over a period within section 123(3)(a) Equality Act 2010, and therefore was not out of time and could be included in the claim. The decision record states that the claimant's other claims continued, so no final determination was made on those claims in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that the Claimant was not a disabled person within s6 Equality Act 2010 at the time of the matters complained of, so the disability discrimination claim was dismissed. It also held that the allegation that she was excluded from meetings from January 2024 formed part of conduct over a period within s123(3)(a) Equality Act 2010 and was not out of time. This was a preliminary ruling and the other claims continued. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s6 Equality Act 2010
- s123(3)(a) 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.