Case 6023042/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mark Linton v Stoke on Trent College — 2025
- Case reference
- 6023042/2024
- Decision date
- 13 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Power Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mark Linton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Power in Birmingham by CVP on 13 October 2025. The tribunal decided that, at the relevant times, Mr Mark Linton was not a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 because of Generalised Anxiety Disorder.
On that basis, the complaints of disability discrimination were dismissed. The judgment does not decide the merits of any substantive discrimination allegations beyond the threshold issue of disability status.
The tribunal recorded that this decision does not affect Mr Linton's ability to pursue his complaint of constructive unfair dismissal. No remedy was awarded in this judgment, and no monetary figures are recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing decision: the tribunal found that, at the relevant times, the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of Generalised Anxiety Disorder. The disability discrimination complaints were dismissed. The judgment states this does not affect the claimant's ability to pursue the constructive unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | 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.