Case 1401462/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss W Butler v Wm Morrison Supermarkets Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1401462/2018
- Decision date
- 12 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed
- Venue
- Havant
- Panel members
- Mr R Spry-Shute, Mr N Cook
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss W Butler
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint, finding that she was not unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the disability discrimination complaints recorded in the judgment. It found that the respondent did not fail to make reasonable adjustments to avoid the disadvantage to which the claimant was put by virtue of her disability, and found that the claimant was not harassed.
The judgment records only the outcomes because oral reasons were given at the hearing, with written reasons to be provided only if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the respondent did not fail to make reasonable adjustments to avoid the disadvantage to which the claimant was put by virtue of her disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the claimant was not harassed. The protected characteristic is inferred from the disability discrimination context, as the brief judgment does not separately specify the basis of the harassment allegation. | 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.