Case 2302102/2016 · Employment Tribunal
AA v A Supermarket — 2018
- Case reference
- 2302102/2016
- Decision date
- 30 August 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge John Crosfill
- Panel members
- Mr G Anderson, Mr S Huggins
Parties
2 namedClaimant
AA
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was unlawfully subjected to harassment related to disability on 2 July 2016 when he was referred to as “mental”, contrary to sections 26 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010. It also found that the respondent failed to make a reasonable adjustment by not providing the claimant with an appropriate chair, with the duty having arisen and been breached by 1 August 2016 under sections 20, 21 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal awarded £9,000 injury to feelings for the act of harassment and £6,000 injury to feelings for the failure to make reasonable adjustments, the latter including any physical pain caused by that failure. It also awarded interest at 8% on the £9,000 from 2 July 2016 to 15 July 2018, calculated at £1,467.62, and interest at 8% on the £6,000 from 1 August 2016 to 15 July 2018, calculated at £938.96. All other claims identified by the claimant as falling for determination at the hearing were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | Disability | £9,000 |
| Disability discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | Disability | £6,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,407
- across all upheld claims
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.