Case 2206172/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Sheraliyeva v John Lewis plc — 2024
- Case reference
- 2206172/2022
- Decision date
- 5 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Akhtar Members
- Panel members
- Ms J Marshall, Mr M Baber
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Sheraliyeva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was disabled by back pain at the material times and that the respondent had knowledge of that disability. It found, however, that the remaining direct discrimination and harassment allegations concerned the police being called, and that this was because of concerns about the claimant's welfare and conduct at the time rather than because of disability.
The tribunal found that the respondent had a PCP requiring removal of chickens from a raised oven, but that it was not applied to the claimant in the complaints before it, and that reasonable steps had been taken in respect of adjustments. On unfair dismissal, it found the claimant was dismissed for misconduct, that the respondent had reasonable grounds following a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.
For discrimination arising from disability, the tribunal accepted that the need for adjustments and the claimant's conduct on 24 April 2022 arose from disability, but found the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims including maintaining a safe and appropriate working environment and conduct standards. All claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not unfairly dismissed and the complaint was not upheld. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was dismissed; the remaining allegation concerned calling the police, which the tribunal found was not because of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed; the tribunal found dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Disability-related harassment was dismissed; the only remaining allegation was calling the police, and the tribunal found the claimant's response to this was unreasonable. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed; the tribunal found the relevant PCP was not applied to the claimant in the complaints before it and that the respondent took reasonable steps. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- BHS v Burchell
- range of reasonable responses
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Grant v HM Land Registry
- Pemberton v Inwood
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Southwark London Borough v Afolabi
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University v Morgan
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.