Case 2205008/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms D Gilbert Counsel — 2020
- Case reference
- 2205008/2018
- Decision date
- 30 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Lewis
- Panel members
- Ms S Plummer, Ms D Olulode
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs A Sulieman brought claims of direct disability discrimination and disability-related harassment against Boots Management Services Ltd. Disability was admitted, but the tribunal found that the claimant had not disclosed her condition when she started work and that the relevant managers and colleagues did not know of it at the material times. The tribunal also found that the claimant preferred not to disclose her disability, and that she did not tell Mr Chapman or Mr Gordon about it during the internal process.
The tribunal rejected the allegation that the claimant had been bullied by excessive searching or by being told she had been dismissed when Mr Chapman was away. It found that searches were carried out by managers because of security concerns, with Ms Zurawska and Ms Jagatia acting only as witnesses, and that the discussion on 10 September 2017 was about performance and probation rather than dismissal. The tribunal found that the claimant misunderstood that conversation and was not dismissed at that stage.
The tribunal accepted that there was a heated argument on 15 October 2017 after the claimant opened a door and hit Ms Kamhouri, but found that Ms Kamhouri was unaware of the claimant's disability. It held that the word 'psycho' was used as a derogatory term in the course of that argument and was not related to disability, and that any allegation that the claimant had said 'I am going to kill you' was part of the same acrimony rather than disability-related conduct. The tribunal also found that Ms Asfar could not suspend Ms Kamhouri because she was not the respondent's employee, and that Ms Kamhouri was suspended by her own employer.
The claimant was dismissed after the disciplinary process for gross misconduct arising from the events of 21 October 2017, namely her refusal to leave the store after being suspended and the disturbance she caused on the shop floor. The tribunal found that this dismissal was not because of disability. The appeal was not upheld, and the tribunal dismissed the claim in full with no award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was alleged in relation to the searching, the alleged false accusation on 15 October 2017, the use of the word 'psycho', the suspension decision, and the dismissal. The tribunal found that the relevant colleagues and managers did not know of the claimant's disability at the material times, and that the dismissal was for gross misconduct on 21 October 2017 rather than because of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The disability-related harassment claim was based on alleged bullying, excessive searching, the alleged false accusation on 15 October 2017, and the 'psycho' remark. The tribunal found there was no excessive searching, that the others acted only as witnesses to searches by managers, and that the conduct complained of was not related to the claimant's disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Grant v HM Land Registry
- Hartley v Foreign and Commonwealth Office Services
- Igen v Wong
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Efobi v Royal Mail Group 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.