Case 1402527/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Richards v John Lewis Partnership plc — 2019
- Case reference
- 1402527/2019
- Decision date
- 21 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Richards
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment. It held that Mr S Richards had been employed by John Lewis Partnership for less than two years, so he did not satisfy the service requirement in section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The tribunal recorded that it had considered the matters raised in the claimant’s email of 18 June 2019, and explained that striking out the unfair dismissal claim did not prevent him from pursuing his disability discrimination allegations in the separate discrimination claim.
The judgment expressly stated that the disability discrimination claim was not affected by the strike-out decision. It also clarified that any arguments in the claim form and the email of 18 June 2019 could still be advanced as part of the disability discrimination claim, including allegations of direct or indirect discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, or a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service, so section 108 ERA 1996 meant he was not entitled to bring that complaint. The tribunal said the disability discrimination claim was not affected by this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.