Case 6019235/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Sandra Clarke v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2026
- Case reference
- 6019235/2024
- Decision date
- 20 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Codd Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Sandra Clarke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records a single determination following a CVP hearing at Birmingham on 20 April 2026 before Employment Judge Codd. The claimant was Mrs Sandra Clarke and the respondent was the Secretary of State for Justice.
The tribunal found that, at the relevant times, Mrs Clarke was not a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Photosensitivity. The written judgment does not record any separate determination of unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, race discrimination, breach of contract, or unlawful deduction from wages claims, and it does not record any remedy award.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing or within 14 days of the written decision being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records a preliminary finding that, at the relevant times, the claimant was not a disabled person under section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of PTSD and Photosensitivity. It does not expressly state that any disability discrimination claim was dismissed. | Other | Disability | — |
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.