Case 1404960/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Wright v TJ Morris Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1404960/2020
- Decision date
- 24 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Oliver
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Mr H Patel, Ms H Pollard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Wright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant resigned on 21 August 2020 and the alleged discriminatory acts were said to have ended on 2 June 2020, so the tribunal first considered time limits under section 123 Equality Act 2010. It found the discrimination complaints were not brought within three months, but extended time as just and equitable, taking account of the claimant's lack of tribunal experience and her mental health difficulties after 2 June 2020.
On the merits, the tribunal rejected the claimant's evidence that she had told Mr Evans, the induction manager, or Mr Smitherman about her back or spinal problems at interview, induction, or later at work, and it did not accept that Mr Smitherman received a fit note for light duties. It accepted that the claimant had a stammer and that it would sometimes be evident when she was stressed, but found that the alleged criticism, talking over her, short-notice shift changes, and increase in weekend working did not happen. It also found the work rota showed shifts were allocated by Kronos and that weekend working decreased in May 2020 rather than increasing.
The direct discrimination and discrimination arising from disability claims therefore failed. For the reasonable adjustments claim, the tribunal held the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know about the spinal disability, although it could reasonably have been expected to know about the stammer. Even so, it found no relevant PCP: it did not accept that employees were required to work to an excessive level, to continue until all duties were finished, to stand for six hours, or that Mr Smitherman used a particular method of raising issues amounting to a PCP. The harassment claim also failed because the tribunal did not accept the allegations of rudeness, criticism, or preventing the claimant from speaking.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim failed because the rota and payslips showed the claimant had been paid correctly, including for her first week and the final weeks of employment. The tribunal noted that the grievance process had not been concluded, but it did not find disability discrimination or an unauthorised deduction on the evidence before it.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the alleged criticism, speaking over the claimant, short-notice shift changes, and increase to one weekend in two did not happen, so the claim failed without any finding that the treatment was because of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the alleged unfavourable treatment did not occur and, in any event, the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know of the spinal disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal found the respondent could reasonably be expected to know about the claimant's stammer, but not her spinal issues; it also found no relevant PCP of excessive work, working until duties were finished, standing for six hours, or the manager's method of raising issues. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability under s.26 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal did not accept that Mr Smitherman was rude, criticised the claimant in the way alleged, or prevented her from putting her case, so the unwanted-conduct allegations failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found no unauthorised deduction from wages. The rota and payslips showed the claimant was paid correctly for her first week and the last two weeks of employment, so the alleged four-hour shortfall was not made out. |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Bexley Community Centre (t/a Leisure Link) v Robertson
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- Gallop v Newport City Council
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 8 paragraph 20 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
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.