Case 1305068/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Johnson v Asda Stores Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1305068/2023
- Decision date
- 28 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
- Venue
- Midlands West
- Panel members
- Mrs D Hill, Mr P Simpson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Johnson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint that she had been subjected to a detriment on the ground that she made a protected disclosure. It also found that the respondent did not contravene section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 by discriminating against the claimant because of something arising in consequence of disability, by applying a discriminatory provision, criterion or practice related to disability, or by victimising her.
The tribunal further found that the respondent did not contravene section 40 of the Equality Act 2010 by harassing the claimant related to disability. The claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) were well-founded, with remedy to be determined at a further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of detriment on the ground of making a protected disclosure was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found no contravention of section 39 Equality Act 2010 in respect of discrimination arising from disability or indirect disability discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found the respondent did not contravene section 39 Equality Act 2010 by victimising the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found the respondent did not contravene section 40 Equality Act 2010 by harassing the claimant related to disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed and that the dismissal was unfair. Remedy was left to a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The complaint of breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) was well-founded. Remedy was left to a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.