Case 1303349/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Merry v The Co-Operative Group Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303349/2022
- Decision date
- 1 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Merry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered whether the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 for the agreed relevant period of February 2021 to March 2022. The claimant relied on a learning impairment.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person at the relevant times by reason of that impairment. As the claimant confirmed this was the impairment relied on for his complaints of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments, those complaints were dismissed.
The judgment states that the unfair dismissal complaint was unaffected by this preliminary judgment and would be considered at the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination arising from disability dismissed after the tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person at the relevant times by reason of the learning impairment relied on. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments dismissed after the claimant confirmed the learning impairment was the impairment relied on and the tribunal found he was not a disabled person at the relevant times. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- disabled person within the meaning of the 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.