Case 1802349/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Abdullah Khalid (brother of Director Asad Khalid) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1802349/2021
- Decision date
- 26 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Neill Appearance
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Cheryl Nicholson, worked for the respondent from 9 December 2020 to 28 February 2021 as a store operator. The tribunal found that she was an employee within section 83 of the Equality Act 2010 and that she had a disability within section 6, namely diabetes, requiring daily insulin injections. The tribunal accepted that, without those injections, she would suffer a hypoglycaemic episode and could fall into a coma.
The tribunal found that Ms Nicholson was dismissed by a text message from the manager, Louise Pearce, on 28 February 2021, followed by a further text on 1 March 2021. The texts said she could not be offered any more shifts, referred to her leaving early, leaving staff alone to clean, and said she needed a job more suitable to her health requirements. The tribunal noted that there had been no previous complaints about her work or conduct, and that the respondent produced no witness evidence or witness statement from anyone with first-hand knowledge of the dismissal.
On that evidence, the tribunal concluded that the dismissal constituted less favourable treatment and that the only plausible explanation was the claimant’s disability and the need to take insulin at a particular time. It therefore upheld the claim of direct discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal rejected any suggestion of another reason for dismissal and found that the texts themselves showed the real reason was the claimant’s health condition.
For remedy, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had mitigated her loss by taking short-term cleaning work at Morrisons and some consultancy work, but that her later inability to continue working was due to an unrelated health condition. It awarded £700 for financial loss, £5,000 for injury to feelings at about the midpoint of the lower Vento band, a 25% ACAS uplift of £1,425 because there had been no attempt to follow the ACAS Code of Practice, and interest of £218, giving a total award of £7,343.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal treated the case as direct discrimination by reason of disability, with dismissal as the detriment. | Upheld | Disability | £7,343 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,343
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.83 Equality Act 2010
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.124 Equality Act 2010
- lower Vento scale
- ACAS Code of Practice
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.