Case 1400060/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T. Richards (daughter) v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400060/2022
- Decision date
- 8 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail
- Venue
- Bodmin
- Panel members
- Mrs C. Monaghan, Ms R. Clarke
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Miss T. Richards (daughter)
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, a long-serving Fresh Sales Assistant employed by Asda Stores Limited from 25 April 1992 until her resignation taking effect on 17 June 2022, brought claims of disability and race discrimination and subsequently added a constructive dismissal claim. The Tribunal, sitting at Bodmin before Employment Judge Smail with Mrs C. Monaghan and Ms R. Clarke, found that the Respondent had committed serious breaches of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. The grievance process took 8 months without reasonable cause, with significant unexplained delays between interviewing the Claimant and Mr Shepherd and between that interview and the outcome.
The Tribunal further held that, given 11 months had passed since the underlying incidents, Mr Gerred-Hart did not have reasonable cause to recommend a disciplinary investigation of the Claimant; the focus should instead have been on managing a return to work. The "last straw" was the appointment as appeal manager of Mr Rawle, who was reasonably regarded by the Claimant as too close to the individuals concerned. The Claimant did not affirm the contract and resigned because of these breaches. As the Respondent had not purported to dismiss for a potentially fair reason, the constructive dismissal was unfair within s.98(4) ERA 1996.
The Equality Act 2010 claims (direct disability and race discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to dyslexia in the grievance process) were dismissed. On the reasonable adjustments point, the Tribunal found that not sharing other witnesses' statements with a grievance-raiser was a provision, criterion or practice but did not put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage as a person with dyslexia. A separate 1-day remedy hearing was listed for 18 December 2023, with directions for a revised Schedule of Loss and supporting evidence.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Tribunal found the Claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed. Remedy deferred to a 1-day remedy hearing listed for 18 December 2023; no quantum stated in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal expressly found at paragraph 95 that, the Respondent not having purported to dismiss for a potentially fair reason, the Claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed. Quantum to be determined at the remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | All Equality Act 2010 claims (including failure to make reasonable adjustments) were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | All Equality Act 2010 claims were dismissed; Claimant described herself as Black British. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation was listed within the discrimination/Equality Act issues; those claims were dismissed. Truncated PDF middle (approx 63k chars omitted) means the precise victimisation analysis is not fully visible, but the overall ruling at paragraph 96 ("Her discrimination claims fail") and judgment paragraph 2 cover this; confidence reduced accordingly. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Equality Act 2010 section 13
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.