Case 6020326/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Represented herself For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020326/2024
- Decision date
- 3 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge James Representation
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Represented herself For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims of unfavourable treatment under section 15 Equality Act 2010 were not upheld and were dismissed. The respondent had admitted unfavourable treatment by dismissal and appeal outcome, and conceded disability, knowledge, and that the relevant absence arose in consequence of disability, but the written judgment records only the final outcome.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant's claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 were not upheld and were dismissed. The annex lists issues about redeployment, secondment, alternative duties, and other possible steps, but written reasons were not provided unless requested after the oral judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim for unfavourable treatment under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was not upheld and dismissed. Written reasons were not provided in the judgment record. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 was not upheld and dismissed. Written reasons were not provided in the judgment record. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- ss.20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 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.