Case 1600755/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Cooper v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600755/2023
- Decision date
- 17 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Brace Members
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Mr A McLean, Mr M Lewis
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr D Cooper
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the direct disability discrimination complaints. It upheld only the complaints concerning the Second Respondent's failure to include the Claimant on the International Men's Day post sent to internal colleagues and published on LinkedIn, finding that this amounted to harassment related to disability and unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. The remaining disability-related complaints were dismissed.
The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant felt humiliated by being omitted from the post and found that the omission was connected to his sickness absence at a time when the respondents knew of his disability. It recorded that there had been nothing to prevent the Second Respondent from telling the Claimant about the post when speaking to him the day before.
The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. The Tribunal accepted capability as a potentially fair reason, found the absence management and final absence review process fair in the circumstances, and concluded that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination complaints were not well-founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability succeeded only in respect of the Second Respondent's failure to include the Claimant on the International Men's Day post sent to internal colleagues and published on LinkedIn; the remaining harassment complaints were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability succeeded only in respect of the International Men's Day post; the remaining complaints of that type were dismissed. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The ordinary unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,852
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,500
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2)
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
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.