Case 1800783/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Bogdanowicz v Next Distribution Limited AT A HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 1800783/2021
- Decision date
- 4 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Members
- Venue
- Sheffield
- Panel members
- Ms M Cairns, Mr G Corbett
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Bogdanowicz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs D Bogdanowicz brought disability discrimination and unfair dismissal complaints against Next Distribution Limited. Two disability-related complaints were dismissed upon withdrawal: the complaint of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability, and the complaint of failure to make specific reasonable adjustments concerning flexi-furlough and a four-day week.
The tribunal found that the redundancy consultation process was not procedurally fair and held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It also held that the respondent breached the duty to make reasonable adjustments by failing to provide an auxiliary aid, identified in the judgment as a perching stool, from 3 November 2020 until termination on 3 February 2021.
Other disability discrimination complaints were dismissed. The claim relating to a stool between 17 August and 3 November 2020 was dismissed, and the claim concerning a lift pass between 17 August and 30 September 2020 was dismissed. On the lift-pass complaint, the tribunal also said the claim was presented outside the relevant three-month period, extended by any relevant ACAS early conciliation, and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time.
The tribunal further dismissed the complaint that the respondent applied a provision, criterion or practice requiring a specific shift pattern during the restructuring process, or that this placed disabled people or the claimant at a substantial disadvantage, or that the respondent failed to make a reasonable adjustment by not adjusting work hours or shift options. Remedy was adjourned to a date to be fixed if not agreed.
Claims and outcomes
7 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 | Complaint of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability; dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make specific reasonable adjustments, namely permitting flexi-furlough and being permitted to work a four day week; dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The redundancy consultation process was found not to be procedurally fair. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make a reasonable adjustment by not providing an auxiliary aid, described as a perching stool, from 3 November 2020 until termination on 3 February 2021. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make a reasonable adjustment by not providing a stool between 17 August and 3 November 2020. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make a reasonable adjustment by not providing a lift pass between 17 August and 30 September 2020; the tribunal also said it was out of time and not just and equitable to extend time. |
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.