Case 2214947/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J. Dickinson v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2214947/2023
- Decision date
- 28 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goodman
- Panel members
- Ms. T. Breslin, Mr. S. Godecharle
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms J. Dickinson
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a museum technician and was dismissed without notice on 14 April 2023 for gross misconduct after a complaint that she had bullied another employee. The respondent admitted that the claimant's depression was a disability and that it knew of that disability; the claimant also relied on autism or a combination of autism and depression.
The tribunal found that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant. It also found that the dismissal was because of something arising from disability and that dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aim. By a majority, the awards for unfair dismissal and discriminatory dismissal were each to be reduced by 25% because of the chance that the claimant may or would have been dismissed in any event.
The tribunal concluded that, although there was misconduct, the claimant's conduct was not so serious as to repudiate the contract entirely. The wrongful dismissal claim therefore succeeded because the claimant was entitled to notice. Remedy was left to be decided at a further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. Remedy was reserved for a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the dismissal was because of something arising from disability and was not a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aim. Remedy was reserved for a further hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed without notice in breach of contract and was entitled to notice. Remedy was reserved for a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.