Case 1600335/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Jenkins v Marks and Spencer plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600335/2019
- Decision date
- 6 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Vernon
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Ms S Hurds, Mrs M Humphries
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Jenkins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and indirect disability discrimination. The judgment records those claims as having failed.
The Tribunal also recorded that the Claimant's claims of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments were out of time. It stated that it had no jurisdiction to consider those claims.
No remedy or monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the wrongful dismissal claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the indirect disability discrimination claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claim of discrimination arising from disability was out of time and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments was out of time and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Other | 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.