Employment Tribunal Rules Against Employer Over Disability Discrimination
📌 In brief
An Employment Tribunal found in favour of an employee who faced discrimination and harassment due to their disability. The employer's actions, such as applying a Bradford factor score and threatening disciplinary action based on absences that included disability-related reasons, were deemed unlawful under the Equality Act 2010.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must not apply a Bradford factor score or threaten disciplinary action based on absences that include disability-related absences without considering the Equality Act 2010.
📖 What the law says
Direct discrimination occurs when someone is treated less favorably due to a protected characteristic like disability. Employers must ensure they do not treat disabled individuals unfavorably compared to others.
This section outlines the criteria for determining whether a dismissal is fair or unfair, requiring employers to provide reasons for the dismissal and prove that these reasons fall within specified categories, such as capability, conduct, redundancy, or legal compliance.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant succeeded in claims of discrimination and harassment related to disability, but failed on direct disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Judge ruled that the employer's actions, including applying a Bradford factor score and threatening disciplinary action based on disability-related absences, constituted discrimination and harassment under the Equality Act 2010. The claimant was awarded compensation for injury to feelings.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed in Part
Case Number: 6003895/2024
- 1 -
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant
Respondent Mr [APPELLANT] v [NAME] (North West) [RESPONDENT] at: Manchester
On: 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27 January 2026 Before: Employment Judge Kenward (sitting alone)
Appearances
For the Claimant: [redacted] For the Respondent: [redacted]
JUDGMENT
1. The following complaints of discrimination arising from disability are well- founded and succeed: (a) being evasive and misleading over whether the Claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010; (b) applying a Bradford factor score of 250 on 16 January 2024 in respect of the Claimant’s absences from work which included disability-related absences; and (c) threatening the Claimant on 16 January 2024 with a formal disciplinary process on the basis of applying a Bradford factor score of 250.
2. The Claimant’s other complaints of discrimination arising from disability are not well-founded and are dismissed.
3. The following complaint of harassment related to disability is well-founded and succeeds, namely being purposely unsupportive of the Claimant’s need for extra support, not fully answering queries and / or not taking the Claimant’s disability into account (by being evasive and misleading over whether the Claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010).
Case Number: 6003895/2024
- 2 -
4. The Claimant’s other complaints of harassment related to disability are not well- founded and are dismissed.
5. The following complaint of indirect disability discrimination is well-founded and succeeds, namely applying a practice on 16 January 2024 of threatening formal disciplinary proceedings on the basis of a Bradford factor score of 250.
6. The Claimant’s other complaints of indirect disability discrimination are not well- founded and are dismissed.
7. The Claimant’s complaints of direct disability discrimination are not well- founded and are dismissed.
8. The Claimant’s complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability are not well-founded and are dismissed.
Approved by
Employment Judge Kenward Dated 27 January 2026
Sent to the parties on
20 February 2026
For the Tribunal office
Notes Reasons for the Judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Judgments and reasons for the Judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the Claimant(s) and Respondent(s) in a case. Please note that if a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge may be payable. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral Judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a Judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings, and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice- directions/
Case Number: 6003895/2024
- 1 -
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant
Respondent Mr [APPELLANT] v [COMPANY] at: Manchester
On: 26 February 2026 Before: Employment Judge Kenward (sitting alone)
Appearances
For the Claimant: [redacted] For the Respondent: [redacted]
REMEDY JUDGMENT
The Tribunal orders the Respondent to pay the Claimant compensation for discrimination amounting to £14,026.80, comprising of:
(1) an award for injury to feelings in the sum of £12,000.00;
(2) interest on the award for injury to feelings in the sum of £2,026.80 (calculated at 8% per annum from 16 January 2024 to 26 February 2026).
Approved by
Employment Judge Kenward Dated 26 February 2026
Sent to the parties on
28 April 2026
For the Tribunal office
Case Number: 6003895/2024
- 2 -
Case Number: 6003895/2024
- 3 -
NOTICE
THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (INTEREST) ORDER 1990 ARTICLE 12
Case number: 6003895/2024
Name of case: Mr [NAME]
v [COMPANY] is payable when an Employment Tribunal makes an award or determination requiring one party to proceedings to pay a sum of money to another party, apart from sums representing costs or expenses.
No interest is payable if the sum is paid in full within 14 days after the date the Tribunal sent the written record of the decision to the parties. The date the Tribunal sent the written record of the decision to the parties is called the relevant decision day.
Interest starts to accrue from the day immediately after the relevant decision day. That is called the calculation day.
The rate of interest payable is the rate specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 on the relevant decision day. This is known as the stipulated rate of interest.
The Secretary of the Tribunal is required to give you notice of the relevant decision day, the calculation day, and the stipulated rate of interest in your case. They are as follows:
the relevant decision day in this case is: 28 April 2026
the calculation day in this case is:
29 April 2026
the stipulated rate of interest is:
8% per annum.
For the Employment Tribunal Office
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects All Claimant's Complaints Against Employer
- Employment Tribunal Worker's Disability Discrimination Claim Dismissed by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Disability Discrimination and Victimisation Com…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Dismisses Claims Due to Non-Attendance
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Rejected by Employment Tribunal
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- An employer must compensate an employee for unauthorised wage deductions but is not liable under employment tribunals for failing to make pension contributions., An employer must provide a written statement of employment particulars to an employee, failing which the employer is liable for compensation under section 38 Employment Rights Act 1996., An employer must provide written itemised pay statements and cannot treat an employee unfavourably due to their disability or request unnecessary sick notes., An employer must make reasonable adjustments for a disabled employee if it is clear that an aspect of their work affects them adversely due to their disability.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- An employer may dismiss an employee on substantial grounds even if those grounds are later exonerated by a professional body like the NMC., A claimant who fails to attend a scheduled Employment Tribunal hearing will have their claims dismissed., A respondent is not liable for unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability or victimisation if the complaint lacks merit.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of an employee who faced discrimination and harassment due to their disability.
Who was involved?
An employee (the claimant) brought a case against their employer (the respondent).
How did the court decide, and why?
The court found that the employer's actions violated the Equality Act 2010 by not considering disability-related absences when applying disciplinary measures.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Key provisions included the Equality Act 2010 and the Employment Rights Act 1996.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The employer's failure to consider disability-related absences when applying a Bradford factor score and threatening disciplinary action was central to the decision.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was in favour of the claimant, who succeeded on claims of discrimination and harassment related to disability.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Employees facing similar issues should seek legal advice to understand their rights under the Equality Act 2010.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The claimant's medical records and emails from HR were likely crucial in establishing disability-related absences.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, either party can appeal the decision to a higher court within a specified time frame.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.