United Synagogue and Others

Case Summary

The claimant, diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), was dismissed by the first respondent. The tribunal found that his claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were unsuccessful.

The tribunal heard the claimant's claims in full and found that the dismissal was fair, the discrimination claims were not made out, and the reasonable adjustments claim failed on its merits.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •claimant's dismissal from employment as a Community Rabbi with the first respondent following an incident
• •publication of videos on YouTube

Case No: 2210360/2023 10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Dr M Freedman Respondents: (1) United Synagogue (2) Anthony Ansell (3) Andrew Eder Heard at: Central London Employment Tribunal On: 18, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26 June 2024, and 27 and 28 June 2024 in chambers, 26 February 2025 in relation to Rule 49 applications, 2 May 2025 in relation to Rule 49 applications and costs Before: Employment Judge Keogh, Mr D Schofield, Mr F Benson Representation Claimant: Ms C Jennings (Counsel), Mr N Brockley (Counsel) on rule 49 applications, the claimant in person on 2 May 2025 Respondent: Ms J Stone (King’s Counsel), Ms V Wiltshire on rule 49 applications and costs RESTRICTED REPORTING ORDER This case involves an allegation of sexual misconduct. Pursuant to section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) act 1992 and section 11 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and rules 49(1) and (3)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules, THIS ORDER PROHIBITS the publication in Great Britain, in respect of the above proceedings, of identifying matter in a written publication available to the public, or its inclusion in a relevant programme for reception in Great Britain: ‘Identifying matter’ in relation to a person means ‘any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify her as a person affected by, or as the person making, the allegation’. The following person may not be identified: The person making the allegation of sexual misconduct towards her. The following information must not be published: (i) The name of the person making the allegation of sexual misconduct towards her. Case No: 2210360/2023 10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017 (ii) Any details linking that person to the claimant or that may lead to the identification of such a link. ANONYMISATION ORDER Pursuant to section 1 of the Sexual O…