Case 1401047/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Donovan v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1401047/2020
- Decision date
- 11 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Donovan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent admitted that the claimant was disabled by reason of depression and/or anxiety from April or May 2018 and had knowledge of that disability. The tribunal found that requiring the claimant to work on checkouts placed her at a substantial disadvantage because it tended to exacerbate her anxiety, and that the respondent knew or could reasonably have known of that disadvantage after the 29 April 2019 fit note.
The tribunal rejected the broader reasonable adjustments claim seeking a permanent daytime role away from checkouts, finding it was not reasonable to require the respondent to create and employ the claimant in a role it did not need. It reached a different conclusion about 23 May 2019: the claimant had asked to work away from the checkout while waiting for a GP call, the burden of accommodating that for a few hours was modest, and the respondent failed to take a reasonable step likely to avoid the disadvantage on that occasion. Time was extended on just and equitable grounds for that complaint.
The discrimination arising from disability claim was dismissed. The refusal on 23 May 2019 was not found to be because of the claimant's need to take the GP call, and although dismissal was because of disability-related sickness absence, the tribunal found dismissal proportionate in pursuit of the respondent's legitimate aim of managing attendance and staffing levels. The unfair dismissal claim was also dismissed because the respondent had consulted, obtained occupational health advice, explored return-to-work options, and reasonably concluded there was no foreseeable return to work.
The breach of contract claim for fuel expenses was dismissed because the tribunal found no contractual term covering all expenses associated with the programme. On remedy, the tribunal decided no loss of earnings would be recoverable for the successful reasonable adjustments claim because the claimant would probably have commenced sickness absence at or about the same time in any event; the only potential financial remedy was injury to feelings, with the tribunal giving only a provisional view that the lower Vento band was likely.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for incapability, a potentially fair reason, after a fair procedure and reasonable enquiries. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded only in relation to 23 May 2019, when the respondent did not allow the claimant to work away from the checkout until she had received her GP's call. Other reasonable adjustment complaints were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The discrimination arising from disability complaints concerning refusal to allow time away from the till and dismissal were dismissed. The dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of disability-related sickness absence, but the tribunal found it justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The expenses claim relating to the Farm to Fork Trail Guide programme failed because the tribunal found no relevant contractual term requiring payment of the claimed expenses. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
20 references- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 8 paragraph 20 Equality Act 2010
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- EHRC Code of Practice on Employment
- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Wilson
- Royal Bank of Scotland v Ashton
- Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust v Foster
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
- Aziz v FDA
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- East Lindsey District Council v Daubney
- Crampton v Dacorum Motors
- Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones
- Taylor v OCS Group Limited
- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
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.