Case 6011343/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Corey Lankovits v Cabinet Office — 2026
- Case reference
- 6011343/2025
- Decision date
- 26 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Corey Lankovits
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Newcastle before Employment Judge Childe, considered complaints brought by Corey Lankovits against the Cabinet Office concerning disability. One allegation of harassment related to disability was upheld: on 11 February 2025 Ms McLoughlin responded to something the claimant said about his ADHD/dyslexia by describing what he had said as 'unprofessional/disruptive' and threatening 'alternate arrangements'. The remaining harassment allegations were dismissed.
The complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was well-founded and succeeded. The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, and the complaint of victimisation, were not well-founded and were dismissed.
By way of remedy the respondent was ordered to pay compensation for injury to feelings of £22,000, together with interest of £1,832.33 calculated under the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996, producing a total of £23,832.33. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will only follow on request.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability concerning Ms McLoughlin's response on 11 February 2025 to the claimant's comment about his ADHD/dyslexia; this single allegation succeeded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Remaining complaints of harassment related to disability were not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability succeeded. Award not split per claim in the judgment. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Complaint of victimisation was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £23,832
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996
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.