Case 1600337/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Dearden v Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600337/2021
- Decision date
- 3 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ryan
- Venue
- By CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Dearden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal decided applications to amend the claim. It allowed the claimant to amend to plead disability discrimination contrary to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 on the basis of the pleaded case that sickness absence arose from disability, that dismissal on 21 October 2020 because of that sickness absence was unfavourable treatment, and that the treatment was not objectively justified.
The tribunal also allowed in part an amendment to plead that the principal reason for dismissal was contrary to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The permitted allegations concerned three alleged disclosures in April 2020 about the distance between employees working on tills and customers packing shopping being less than two metres, said to raise a health and safety concern about preventing the spread of Covid-19.
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend her claim to plead claims under sections 44 and 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that reasons were given orally and that the parties were informed of their right to request written reasons.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment allowed the claimant's application to amend her claim to plead disability discrimination contrary to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010; it did not determine the merits of that claim. | Other | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment allowed in part the claimant's application to amend her claim to plead that the principal reason for dismissal was contrary to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, limited to three alleged protected public interest disclosures; it did not determine the merits of that claim. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refused the claimant's application to amend her claim to plead claims under sections 44 and 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; it did not determine the merits of any such claims. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 15 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 44 and 100 of the 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.