Case 1306468/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Anker Ryan v John Lewis plc — 2026
- Case reference
- 1306468/2024
- Decision date
- 22 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Anker Ryan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that Miss J Anker Ryan brought complaints against John Lewis plc including unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal in relation to notice pay, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and harassment related to disability.
The written judgment states that each complaint was not well-founded and was dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record does not set out factual findings, legal tests, remedy figures, or any award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as wrongful dismissal in relation to notice pay and states that it was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct disability discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the complaint of harassment related to disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.