Case 2203741/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Gnapi v The Walt Disney Company Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2203741/2022
- Decision date
- 30 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joffe Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Gnapi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss D Gnapi presented her claim on 2 June 2022 and said she had worked for The Walt Disney Company Limited between 1 June and 1 September 2021. She ticked race and disability discrimination and initially gave no particulars beyond the statement that “Disney are racist”. Employment Judge Gilbert later noted that the claims appeared to have been presented out of time and ordered particulars. At a case management preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Isaacson, the claimant was ordered to particularise both claims fully and to provide a witness statement for the open preliminary hearing on time issues.
By the time of the open preliminary hearing on 1 December 2022, the claimant had sent some further material but had still not complied fully with the earlier orders. The respondent had applied for an unless order, and the claimant had received a strike out warning. The claimant explained that she had significant mental health problems, and she produced medical records during the hearing which the judge accepted as substantiating that account.
Employment Judge Joffe decided that it was not proportionate to strike out the claims for failure to comply with orders at that stage. Instead, the tribunal made further case management orders requiring the claimant to obtain a letter or report from a treating doctor by 16 January 2023 addressing her conditions, treatment, prognosis, ability to participate in the proceedings, and any recommended adjustments. If she could not comply, she had to notify the tribunal and the respondent by that date. The judge also adjourned consideration of the time issues identified earlier and directed the respondent to set out by 30 January 2023 which strike-out applications it wished to pursue and what directions it proposed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The open preliminary hearing did not determine the merits of the race discrimination claim. The tribunal refused to strike out the claim for non-compliance and adjourned the time-limit issue to a later date. | Other | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The open preliminary hearing did not determine the merits of the disability discrimination claim. The tribunal refused to strike out the claim for non-compliance and adjourned the time-limit issue to a later date. | 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.