Case 1400510/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs SHARAN BAKER v Boots Opticians Professional Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400510/2021
- Decision date
- 10 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge David Hughes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs SHARAN BAKER
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place on 17 May 2022 before Employment Judge David Hughes, sitting via CVP. The tribunal dealt only with a preliminary/jurisdictional issue, and reasons were given orally, so no written reasons were issued.
The Claimant's unfair dismissal claim, presented on 25 January 2021, was dismissed as outwith the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The judgment does not record a substantive merits finding on the dismissal complaint.
The tribunal held that the Claimant's claim for indirect discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments was within jurisdiction because it had been presented within a period the tribunal considered just and equitable under section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment does not decide liability on the discrimination allegations or record any monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as outwith the Tribunal's jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim for indirect discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments was found to be within the Tribunal's jurisdiction; the judgment does not determine the merits of that claim. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
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.